DAFI63-101/20-101

BY ORDER OF THE

SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

INSTRUCTION 63-101/20-101

16 FEBRUARY 2024

Acquisition/Logistics

INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE

MANAGEMENT

COMPLIANCE WITH THIS PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY

ACCESSIBILITY: Publications and forms are available on the e-Publishing website at

www.e-Publishing.af.mil for downloading or ordering.

RELEASABILITY: There are no releasability restrictions on this publication.

OPR: SAF/AQXS Certified by: SAF/AQX

(Mr. Mark Murphy)

Supersedes: AFI 63-101/20-101, 30 June 2020 Pages: 196

This publication implements Air Force Policy Directive (AFPD) 63-1/20-1, Integrated Life Cycle

Management. This instruction establishes the Integrated Life Cycle Management guidelines and

procedures for Department of Air Force (DAF) personnel who develop, review, approve or manage

systems, subsystems, end-items, services, and activities (for the purpose of this publication

referred to as programs throughout this document) procured under Department of Defense (DoD)

5000 series instructions comprising the Defense Acquisition System. Additionally, this DAF

Instruction (DAFI) supports guidance provided in the Office of Management and Budget Circular

A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget; Department of Defense Instruction

(DoDI) 2000.25, DoD Procedures for Reviewing and Monitoring Transactions Filed with the

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS); DoDI 2040.03, End Use

Certificates (EUC); DoDI 3020.41, Operational Contract Support (OCS); DoDI 3200.19, Non-

Lethal Weapons (NLW) Human Effects Characterization; DoDI 3200.20, Scientific and

Engineering Integrity; DoDI 4140.73, Asset Physical Accountability Policy; DoDI 4151.19,

Serialized Item Management for Life Cycle Management of Materiel; DoDI 4151.20, Depot

Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process; DoDI 4151.21, Public-Private

Partnerships for Product Support; DoDI 4151.22, Condition Based Maintenance Plus for Materiel

Maintenance; DoDI 4245.14, DoD Value Engineering (VE) Program; DoDI 4245.15, Diminishing

Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Management; DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the

Adaptive Acquisition Framework; DoDI 5000.60, Defense Industrial Base Assessments; DoDI

5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DOD Military Equipment and Infrastructure;

DoDI 5000.69, DoD Joint Services Weapon and Laser System Safety Review Process; DoDI

5000.82, Acquisition of Information Technology (IT); DoDI 5000.86, Acquisition Intelligence;

2  DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024 
DoDI 5000.87, Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway; DoDI 5000.88, Engineering of 
Defense  Systems;  DoDI  5000.89,  Test  and  Evaluation;  DoDI  5000.91,  Product  Support 
Management for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework; DoDI 5000.92, Innovation and Technology 
to  Sustain  Materiel  Readiness;  DoDI  8320.03,  Unique  Identification  (UID)  Standards  for 
Supporting  DoD  Information  Enterprise;  DoDI  8320.04,  Item  Unique  Identification  (IUID) 
Standards for Tangible Personal Property; and DoDI 8320.06, Organization Unique Identification 
(OUID)  Standards  for  Unique  Identification  of  External  Department  of  Defense  Business 
Partners.  This publication is applicable to the entire DAF, including all uniformed members of 
the Regular Air Force, United States Space Force, Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard, 
except where otherwise noted, all DAF civilian employees, and those with a contractual obligation 
to  abide  by the  terms  of this  publication.   Soley when  used  within this  instruction, the  term 
“MAJCOM”  includes and  should be  interpreted to  include  FLDCOMs,  direct  reporting units 
(DRU), and field operating agencies (FOA).  The term “Wing” should be interpreted to include 
“Delta,” as appropriate. Tier waiver authority is addressed in Chapter 1, paragraph 1.4.  This 
DAFI  may be  supplemented at  any level,  but all  supplements must  be  routed  to  the  Deputy 
Assistant  Secretary  (Acquisition  Integration)  (SAF/AQX)  for  review  and  approval  prior  to 
publication.    Compliance  with  the  attachments  in  this  publication  is  mandatory.    Refer 
recommended changes and questions about this publication to SAF/AQXS using DAF Form 847, 
Recommendation for Change of Publication; route DAF Forms 847 from the field through the 
appropriate functional chain of command.  Ensure all records generated as a result of processes 
prescribed in this publication adhere to Air Force Instruction 33-322, Records Management and 
Information Governance Program, and are disposed in accordance with the Air Force Records 
Disposition Schedule, which is located in the Air Force Records Information Management System.  
The use of the name or mark of any specific manufacturer, commercial product, commodity, or 
service in this publication does not imply endorsement by the DAF. 
SUMMARY OF CHANGES 
This document was revised to remove acquisition pathway specific guidance contained in new 
DAF  supplements.    Additional  changes  include  the  implementation  of  new  DoD  issuances, 
addressing organizational changes including those resulting in the creation of the United States 
Space Force (USSF), changes to roles and responsibilities, and changes to reflect two DAF Service 
Acquisition Executives. 
 
Chapter 1—INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT    8 
1.1.  Overview. .................................................................................................................   8 
1.2.  Applicability. ...........................................................................................................   8 
Figure  1.1.  Adaptive Acquisition Framework. ...........................................................................   10 
1.3.  Acquisition Execution Chain of Authority. .............................................................   13 
Table  1.1.  MDA Delegation. .....................................................................................................   14 
1.4.  Waiver Authority (Tiering) and Tailoring. ..............................................................   16 
1.5.  PEO Portfolio Assignment or Transfer. ...................................................................   17 

DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024  3 
Chapter 2—ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES    20 
1.  Purpose. ...................................................................................................................   20 
2.  Service Acquisition Executive. ................................................................................   20 
3.  Senior Procurement Executive (SPE). .....................................................................   20 
4.  Milestone Decision Authority. .................................................................................   20 
5.  Program Executive Officer. .....................................................................................   21 
6.  Program Manager (PM). ..........................................................................................   22 
7.  Product Support Manager. .......................................................................................   23 
8.  Chief Engineer. ........................................................................................................   23 
9.  Chief Developmental Tester (Test Manager)...........................................................   24 
10.  Acquisition Intelligence Analyst. .............................................................................   24 
11.  Implementing Commanders. ....................................................................................   25 
12.  Authorizing Official (AO). ......................................................................................   26 
13.  Operational Command, Direct Reporting Unit (DRU), and Field Operating 
Agency (FOA) Commanders. ..................................................................................   26 
14.  Service Intelligence Center Commander. ................................................................   27 
15.  Acquisition Security Professional. ...........................................................................   27 
16.  Technology Executive Officer (TEO). ....................................................................   27 
Chapter 3—DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OPERATION OF THE DEFENSE 
ACQUISITION SYSTEM    28 
1.  Capability-Based Requirements Development. .......................................................   28 
2.  Milestone Decision Authority Determinations and Certifications. ..........................   28 
3.  Acquisition Review Boards and Acquisition Strategy Panels. ................................   28 
4.  Configuration Steering Board. .................................................................................   29 
5.  Science and Technology. .........................................................................................   30 
6.  Program Work Breakdown Structure. ......................................................................   31 
7.  Integrated Master Plans (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS). ................   31 
8.  Performance Measurement Baseline Analysis. ........................................................   31 
9.  Earned Value Management (EVM). ........................................................................   31 
10.  Affordability Analysis. ............................................................................................   32 
11.  Post Implementation Review. ..................................................................................   33 
12.  Independent Reviews. ..............................................................................................   33 
13.  Weapon and Cyber Legality Reviews. .....................................................................   33 

DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024 
14.  Program Terminations. ............................................................................................   33 
15.  Exportability Reviews and Waivers. ........................................................................   33 
16.  National Security System Designation Determination. ...........................................   34 
Chapter 4—PROGRAM ACTIVITIES    35 
1.  Program Integration. ................................................................................................   35 
2.  Program Documentation. .........................................................................................   35 
3.  Acquisition Strategy. ...............................................................................................   36 
4.  Program Baseline. ....................................................................................................   36 
5.  Risk-Based Program Management and Decision Making. ......................................   37 
6.  Small Business Integrated Life Cycle Management Activities................................   41 
7.  Intellectual Property (IP)..........................................................................................   41 
8.  Test Planning. ..........................................................................................................   46 
9.  Modeling and Simulation. ........................................................................................   47 
10.  Government Cost Estimates. ....................................................................................   48 
11.  Program Funding. ....................................................................................................   49 
12.  New Start Notification. ............................................................................................   49 
13.  Use of Specifications and Standards. .......................................................................   50 
14.  Intelligence Supportability Analysis. .......................................................................   50 
15.  Arms Control Compliance. ......................................................................................   52 
16.  Procurement Fraud. ..................................................................................................   53 
17.  Missile Defense Agency Related Acquisition. ........................................................   53 
18.  Nuclear Weapon Related Policy. .............................................................................   53 
19.  Management of DAF Training Systems. .................................................................   54 
20.  End Use Certificate. .................................................................................................   54 
21.  Auditability. .............................................................................................................   55 
22.  General Equipment Valuation. .................................................................................   56 
23.  Serialized Item Management. ..................................................................................   57 
24.  Item Unique Identification Planning. .......................................................................   58 
25.  Government Furnished Property. .............................................................................   59 
26.  Industrial Base Constraints and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) 
Integration. ...............................................................................................................   59 
27.  Other Acquisition Planning Factors. ........................................................................   62 
Table  4.1.  Other Acquisition Planning Factors. ........................................................................   62 

DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024  5 
Chapter 5—SYSTEMS ENGINEERING    68 
1.  Systems Engineering (SE) Overview. ......................................................................   68 
2.  Systems Engineering Processes. ..............................................................................   71 
3.  System Engineering Activities in the Life Cycle. ....................................................   76 
4.  Systems Engineering Design Considerations. .........................................................   77 
Figure  5.1.  Use Cases for 95 Percent Accommodation. .............................................................   85 
Chapter 6—PROGRAM PROTECTION    93 
1.  Program Protection Overview..................................................................................   93 
2.  Program Protection Planning. ..................................................................................   93 
3.  Communications Security (COMSEC). ...................................................................   94 
4.  Anti-Tamper. ............................................................................................................   94 
5.  Operations Security (OPSEC). .................................................................................   95 
6.  Counterintelligence. .................................................................................................   95 
7.  Foreign Intelligence. ................................................................................................   95 
8.  System Security Engineering. ..................................................................................   95 
9.  Trusted Systems and Networks. ...............................................................................   95 
10.  Acquisition Security. ...............................................................................................   96 
11.  Cybersecurity. ..........................................................................................................   96 
12.  Nuclear Systems Security. .......................................................................................   96 
13.  Physical Security. .....................................................................................................   96 
14.  Supply Chain Risk Management. ............................................................................   97 
15.  Cyber-Supply Chain Risk Management. .................................................................   97 
Chapter 7—PRODUCT SUPPORT    98 
1.  Product Support and Sustainment Planning Overview. ...........................................   98 
2.  Product Support Business Model. ............................................................................   98 
3.  Weapon System Sustainment. ..................................................................................   98 
4.  Centralized Asset Management (CAM). ..................................................................   99 
5.  Product Support Strategy. ........................................................................................   99 
6.  Product Support Business Case Analysis. ...............................................................   99 
7.  Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. ...................................................................................   100 
8.  Materiel Fielding. .....................................................................................................   103 
9.  Product Support and Logistics Assessments. ...........................................................   104 
10.  Sustainment Metrics. ...............................................................................................   105 

DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024 
11.  Depot Maintenance and Sustainment Cost Reporting. ............................................   106 
12.  Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance. .............................................................   106 
13.  Depot Source of Repair. ...........................................................................................   107 
14.  Contractor Logistics Support. ..................................................................................   107 
15.  Public-Private Partnerships. .....................................................................................   109 
16.  Technical Orders. .....................................................................................................   111 
17.  Support Equipment/Automatic Test Systems (SE/ATS). ........................................   114 
18.  Provisioning. ............................................................................................................   114 
19.  Divestiture Planning. ...............................................................................................   115 
20.  Demilitarization, Removal from Service, Disposal, Reclamation, and Migration. .   115 
21.  Propulsion Management. .........................................................................................   116 
Chapter 8—GUIDANCE APPLICABLE TO PROGRAMS CONTAINING 
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY    118 
1.  Networks and Information Integration Requirements Overview. ............................   118 
2.  Planning Requirements. ...........................................................................................   118 
Table  8.1.  Programs Containing Information Technology Requirements. ...............................   118 
Chapter 9—MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT    124 
1.  Modification Management Overview. .....................................................................   124 
2.  AF Form 1067 Applicability. ...................................................................................   124 
3.  Modification Types. .................................................................................................   125 
4.  Modifications to Assets Planned for Retirement (or Sunset Provisions). ................   130 
5.  Additional Modification Requirements. ..................................................................   131 
6.  Modification Fielding and Installation. ....................................................................   134 
7.  Modification Close-out. ...........................................................................................   134 
8.  Modification Management Reporting. .....................................................................   135 
Chapter 10—ACQUISITION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT    136 
1.  Overview. .................................................................................................................   136 
2.  Acquisition Workforce. ...........................................................................................   136 
3.  Responsibilities and Authorities. .............................................................................   136 
4.  AF Acquisition Professional Development Program. ..............................................   137 
Chapter 11—REPORTING    143 
1.  Reporting Requirements. .........................................................................................   143 

DAFI63-101/20-101  16 FEBRUARY 2024  7 
11.2.  Investment Fund Reporting. .....................................................................................   143 
11.3.  Investment Master List, Acquisition Master List, and AML-Exempt activities. .....   144 
Figure  11.1.  IML, AML, AML-Exempt Relationship. ................................................................   145 
11.4.  Management Acquisition Reports. ...........................................................................   146 
Table  11.1.  Management Acquisition Reporting Frequency. .....................................................   147 
11.5.  Modification Management Reporting. .....................................................................   148 
11.6.  Logistics Health Assessment Reporting. .................................................................   149 
11.7.  Test and Evaluation Reporting. ................................................................................   149 
Chapter 12—ACQUISITION INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS    150 
12.1.  Acquisition Industrial Preparedness Overview. .......................................................   150 
12.2.  Industrial Facilities. .................................................................................................   150 
12.3.  Additional Responsibilities and Authorities. ...........................................................   151 
12.4.  Permissible Funding. ...............................................................................................   152 
12.5.  Leases. .....................................................................................................................   153 
Attachment 1—GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION    154 
Attachment 2—MODIFICATION PROPOSAL PROCESS AND AF FORM 1067 
DESCRIPTIONS    174 
Attachment 3—LIFE CYCLE RISK MANAGEMENT RISK MATRIX DEFINITIONS    189 
Attachment 4—DETERMINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (NSS)    194 
 

8 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 1

INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT

1.1. Overview. DAFI 63-101/20-101, Integrated Life Cycle Management, contains directive

overarching processes and procedures required to deliver and sustain warfighting capabilities.

Integrated Life Cycle Management governs all aspects of infrastructure, resource management,

and business systems necessary for the successful acquisition of systems, subsystems, end items,

and services to satisfy validated warfighter or user requirements. This publication was written to

be used with pathway-specific directive guidance provided in DoD and DAF issuances, and non-

directive best practices and procedures provided in DAF Pamphlet (DAFPAM) 63-128, Integrated

Life Cycle Management, and AFPAM 63-129, Air System Development and Sustainment

Engineering Processes and Procedures.

1.2. Applicability. This instruction applies to the management of space and non-space

acquisition programs to include weapons, weapons systems, national security systems, business

systems, and all investment-funded activities (for the purpose of this publication referred to as

programs throughout this document), in any phase of the life cycle. This instruction applies to

acquisition programs using pathways in the adaptive acquisition framework (AAF) as defined in

DoDI 5000.02 and shown in Figure 1.1 below. DAF acquisition programs begin by utilizing

investment funding (i.e., research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) or procurement) to

satisfy a validated need.

1.2.1. Modifications. Modifications to systems are addressed in Chapter 9. Permanent

modifications to an operational capability may result in a new acquisition program and

appropriate pathway-specific guidance would also apply (e.g., DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151,

Major Capability Acquisition). Modifications using investment funding are included on the

Acquisition Master List (AML) regardless of pathway.

1.2.2. Maintenance. Maintenance activities for existing programs that are not considered a

permanent modification and do not utilize investment funding are not required to be managed

as a new acquisition program. Maintenance activities are managed in accordance with

maintenance and program specific processes. This instruction does not apply to the following

modification and maintenance activities:

1.2.2.1. Replacement of interchangeable items which do not involve the alteration of an

existing asset. Military Handbook (MIL-HDBK)-61B, Configuration Management

Guidance, considers an interchangeable product one which possesses such functional and

physical attributes as to be equivalent in performance to another product of similar or

identical purposes and is capable of being exchanged with the other product without

alteration of the products themselves or of adjoining products.

1.2.2.2. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funded actions that keep a previously

established level of performance through routine, recurring work correction of product

quality deficiencies, restoration of the functional baseline or performance specification,

and do not extend service life of the equipment or alter form, fit, function, or interface.

Note: Individual engineering changes completed as part of an existing acquisition program

involving developmental items or production articles that have not been formally accepted

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 9

by the government via a Department of Defense (DD) Form 250, Material Inspection and

Receiving Report are not considered operations and maintenance funded actions.

1.2.2.2.1. This includes depot-level maintenance and repair as defined in Title 10

United States Code (USC) Section 2460, Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and

Repair, and maintenance actions such as the materiel repair, overhaul, rebuilding of

parts, assemblies, subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment to

correct a deficient condition in the originally designed functionality.

1.2.2.2.2. Tech refresh to maintain and/or optimize operational readiness of

commercially available office information systems and associated software.

1.2.2.2.3. Assets that are no longer part of an active inventory, such as aircraft in long-

term storage that are not part of a reutilization effort.

1.2.2.2.4. Modifications of facilities or other base-level infrastructure,

telecommunications equipment, or property.

10 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Figure 1.1. Adaptive Acquisition Framework.

1.2.3. Major Capability (Acquisition Category (ACAT)) Programs. Additional detailed

guidance for ACAT programs, also known as Major Capability Acquisition (MCA) programs,

is in DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151, Major Capability Acquisition. DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-

151 defines and provides the criteria for ACAT programs. Programs retain their ACAT

designation through sustainment, until demilitarized, disposed of, or terminated. MCA

programs are categorized on the AML and the Investment Master List (IML) depending on

phase and funding type.

1.2.4. Defense Business Systems (DBS). Additional detailed guidance for DBS is in DoDI

5000.75_DAFI 63-144, Business System Requirements Acquisition. DBS programs are subject

to AML categorization and acquisition reporting.

1.2.5. The Middle Tier of Acquisition (Rapid Prototyping and Rapid Fielding). Additional

detailed guidance for Middle Tier of Acquisition programs is in DoDI 5000.80_DAFI 63-146,

Operation of the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA). MTA programs are subject to AML

categorization and acquisition reporting.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 11

1.2.6. Software Acquisition. Additional detailed guidance for software acquisition pathway

programs is in DoDI 5000.87_DAFI 63-150, Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway.

Software programs are subject to AML categorization and acquisition reporting. Note: Not all

software or software-intensive programs must use the Software Acquisition Pathway. Program

managers (PM) may choose the pathway from the AAF given their program’s objectives and

resources.

1.2.7. Urgent Capability Acquisition (UCA). Additional detailed guidance for UCA is in

DoDI 5000.81_DAFI 63-147, Urgent Capability Acquisition. UCA includes rapid acquisition

programs responding to an approved Joint Urgent Operational Need (JUON), Joint Emergent

Operational Need (JEON), or Urgent Operational Need (UON). Urgent capability programs

are subject to AML categorization and acquisition reporting.

1.2.8. Acquisition of Services. Acquisition of services are AML-exempt investment activities

and follow the guidance in DoDI 5000.74, Defense Acquisition of Services and AFI 63-138,

Acquisition of Services.

1.2.9. Sustainment Activities. This publication provides guidance for programs in the

Operations and Support Phase including programs or systems utilizing O&M funding.

Systems in the Operations and Support Phase are not required to retroactively meet information

requirements identified in previous phases of the acquisition life cycle. These systems should

continue to meet the requirements needed for continued operation to include modifications and

maintenance activities. Sustainment activities utilizing investment funding should be

categorized as either an AML or AML-Exempt program and report funding in accordance with

this DAFI (see Chapter 11).

1.2.10. Other Acquisition Master List-Exempt Investment Activities. All investment

activities are required to report investment funding and be categorized as AML-Exempt per

Chapter 11. Investment activities are required to comply with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) and financial management requirements as defined. AML-Exempt investment

activities, except services, are not considered acquisition pathway programs and are not

required to follow DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, guidance related to the

management of acquisition programs. AML-Exempt investment activities include, but are not

limited to:

1.2.10.1. Civilian Pay (Investment-Funded), Commodity Procurements, Developmental

Infrastructure Sustainment, Development of Enterprise Architectures/Certifications, and

Replenishment Spares Procurements.

1.2.10.2. Studies. Studies using investment funds or in support of a program.

1.2.10.3. Technology Projects. Note: The management procedures of this DAFI do not

apply to science and technology programs, demonstrations, experiments, or projects

managed using AFI 61-101, Management of Science and Technology.

1.2.11. Special Access Program (SAP). The PM collaborates with SAF/AAZ when SAP

information is involved to determine a prudent program protection planning approach prior to

developing a program protection plan (PPP), reference DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113,

Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological Advantage for additional

guidance. SAPs are managed in accordance with DoDD 5205.07, Special Access Program

(SAP) Policy, DoDI 5205.11, Management, Administration, and Oversight of DoD Special

12 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Access Programs (SAPs), AFPD 16-7, Special Access Programs and AFI 16-701,

Management, Administration and Oversight of Special Access Programs.

1.2.11.1. Collateral programs with acknowledged SAP elements are required to follow the

guidance in this DAFI unless specifically exempt by this or other publications.

1.2.11.2. For all other SAP programs, the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for

Acquisition, Directorate of Special Programs (SAF/AQL), in consultation with the

Assistant Secretary for the Air Force for Space Acquisition and Integration, Integration

Directorate (SAF/SQX) if space related, will assess all acquisition policy and instructions

for application to SAPs and establish acquisition policy specific to SAPs in accordance

with AFI 16-701. SAF/AQL, SAF/AQX, and SAF/SQX in coordination with the Director,

Security, Special Programs Oversight and Information Protection (SAF/AAZ), are

responsible for these activities.

1.2.11.3. SAF/AAZ reviews Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States

transactions received from DoD Special Access Program Central Office and is the DAF

responsible party as the Cognizant Security Authority pursuant to DoDI 5205.11.

1.2.12. Security Cooperation and Foreign Military Sales (FMS). Security Cooperation and

FMS programs support United States (U.S.) foreign policy and national security objectives by

enabling the United States to build, sustain, expand, and guide international partnerships that

are critical enablers for its national security objectives.

1.2.12.1. Security Cooperation and FMS acquisition programs are executed in accordance

with the Arms Export Control Act, 22 USC Section 2751; Defense Security Cooperation

Agency 5105.38-M, Security Assistance Management Manual; DoD Financial

Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management

Regulation; and AFMAN 16-101, Security Cooperation (SC) and Security Assistance (SA)

Management.

1.2.12.2. FMS programs are implemented based on the direction in the DoD 5000

acquisition series, DoD 5200 series, DAF 99-series test publications, DAF 62-series

engineering publications, DAF 63-series acquisition publications, DAF 14-series

intelligence publications, and DAF 16-series operations support publications to afford the

foreign purchaser the same benefits and protections that apply to DoD procurement. The

applicability to each FMS case of tailored requirements or application of unique

requirements from these policies is limited to what is contained in the government-to-

government agreement.

1.2.12.3. FMS program requirements are contained in a government-to-government

agreement. This agreement is implemented for execution through the appropriate

accountability reporting chain of the assigned DoD component authority.

1.2.12.3.1. The government-to-government agreement established by a bilaterally

signed Letter of Offer and Acceptance specifies any tailored implementation of

acquisition direction for the FMS program.

1.2.12.3.2. Collaboration with the user occurs as early as possible in the program’s life

cycle on the feasibility of exportable and interoperable configurations and open system

architectures in the system design based on an analysis of current and future

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 13

international market. This can enable more timely and efficient future FMS cases;

however, changes adding requirements or costs must be approved by the user.

1.2.12.3.3. FMS programs are not included on the IML; however, the PM for FMS

programs uses the Project Management Resource Tool (PMRT) Management

Acquisition Report (MAR) to capture specified programmatic, contracting, and

financial data. Reference AFMAN 16-101 for guidance.

1.3. Acquisition Execution Chain of Authority. The DAF acquisition chain of authority reflects

the management structure from the Service Acquisition Executive (SAE) through the Program

Executive Officer (PEO) to the accountable PM. Note: The SAE is referred to as the Component

Acquisition Executive (CAE) in DoD issuances. The acquisition chain of authority should be

streamlined and characterized by short, clearly defined lines of responsibility, authority, and

accountability and minimize levels of review between the PM and the decision authority. Only

those in the acquisition execution chain of authority exercise decision-making authority on

programmatic matters. The PM documents the acquisition execution chain of authority in the

Acquisition Strategy. The acquisition chain of authority includes the following:

1.3.1. Milestone Decision Authority (MDA) or Decision Authority (DA). The MDA, also

referred to as DA for pathways without milestones, has the authority to approve entry of a

program into the next phase of the life cycle process, certify milestone or other decision point

criteria, and is accountable for cost, schedule, and performance reporting to higher authority,

including Congress. The authority of the MDA and delegation is defined in Table 1.1. For

acquisition of services, decision authority delegations are in AFI 63-138. References to MDA

in this publication apply to the person with program decision authority and overall

responsibility for a program regardless of pathway.

1.3.1.1. The Defense Acquisition Executive (DAE) is the MDA for ACAT ID programs

in accordance with the guidelines specified in DoDI 5000.85.

1.3.1.2. The SAE is the MDA for ACAT IB, ACAT IC, Business Category (BCAT) I, and

special interest programs. The SAE is the MDA for Middle Tier and software pathway

programs meeting the criteria of a Major Defense Acquisition Program (MDAP) unless

delegated. Reference DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151 for MDAP criteria.

1.3.1.2.1. MDA responsibilities for ACAT II, ACAT III, BCAT II, BCAT III, Middle

Tier, and Software Pathway programs, are delegated to a PEO by this instruction and

documented in the PEO assignment memorandum.

1.3.1.2.2. PEOs may delegate ACAT II, ACAT III, BCAT II, BCAT III, Middle Tier,

or Software Pathway programs MDA authorities to any individual and should delegate

to the lowest level. The SAE has the authority to rescind delegations. Delegations are

in writing (can be waived by SAE) and no further delegation is allowed.

1.3.1.2.3. PEOs will notify the SAE and SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX (for space programs),

of all MDA delegations and update applicable reporting systems (can be waived by

SAE).

14 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Table 1.1. MDA Delegation.

CATEGORIZATION

Designation

Authority

MDA

ACAT ID

DAE

ACAT IB

SAE

ACAT IC

DAE

SAE

Middle Tier meeting

MDAP criteria

SAE

Software Pathway

meeting MDAP criteria

SAE

or as delegated

ACAT II

SAE

PEO or as delegated to any

individual

ACAT III

SAE

PEO or as delegated to any

individual

BCAT I

SAE

BCAT II

SAE

PEO or as delegated to any

individual

BCAT III

SAE

PEO or as delegated to any

individual

MTA or software not meeting

MDAP criteria

SAE

PEO or as delegated to any

individual

Notes: 1) Refer to pathway publications for category descriptions.

2) SAE designated the MDA for all MDAP programs entering Milestone A after

October 1, 2016, unless the Secretary of Defense designates an alternate MDA

(reference Section 825 of Public Law 114–92 and paragraph 3.9).

3) Use of MTA for MDAP level requires pre-approval from DAE. (Reference

DoDI 5000.80)

4) Unless designated Special Interest by the DAE.

5) Includes ACAT programs in the MCA and UCA pathways.

1.3.2. Program Executive Officer. The PEO is responsible for and has authority to accomplish

assigned portfolio objectives and ensures collaboration across the integrated life cycle

management framework. The PEO identifies a Director of Engineering to be accountable to

the PEO for oversight of the portfolio’s engineering functional support. (T-2)

1.3.2.1. The PEO provides dedicated executive program management of delegated

programs. (T-1)

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 15

1.3.2.2. All personnel assigned as a PEO meet the Key Leadership Position qualifications

and tenure requirements identified in this instruction and AFI 36-1301, Management of

Acquisition Key Leadership Positions. (T-0)

1.3.3. Program Manager (PM). The PM is the designated individual with the responsibility

for and authority to accomplish program objectives for development, production, and

sustainment to meet the user’s operational needs throughout life cycle of the program.

1.3.3.1. All programs on the AML, to include programs using MCA Pathway (i.e.,

ACATs), MTA Pathway, UCA Pathway, DBS Pathway (BCATs), or Software Acquisition

(SWA) Pathway, and weapons systems identified by DAFPD 10-9, Lead Command/Lead

Agent Designation and Responsibilities for United States Air Force Weapons Systems,

Non-Weapon Systems, and Activities, will have only one clearly identified and documented

PM. (T-0) A waiver is required to be submitted to the SAE if no single PM is identified.

1.3.4. Program Support Personnel. The PM leads the program organization in executing the

mission. Functional representatives within the program, irrespective of location or whether

supporting the program on a full or part time basis, take program direction from the PM for

program-related activities. The PM identifies and defines the roles and responsibilities of

support functions critical to the successful execution of the PM’s responsibilities. As a

minimum, the PM identifies and defines the Chief Engineer, the Product Support Manager

(PSM), the Chief Developmental Tester (Test Manager), and the Acquisition Intelligence

Analyst. The PM also identifies the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). Roles and

responsibility descriptions include specific delegations and limitations of delegations, establish

clear lines of accountability, and identify requirements for cross-functional management and

coordination. The PM keeps these descriptions current throughout the life cycle. (T-3) Other

functional positions should be identified; full descriptions are included at the PM’s discretion.

1.3.4.1. Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer is identified as soon as possible following

the assignment of the PM. Note: The DAF term “Chief Engineer” is synonymous with the

DoDI 5000.88 term “Lead Systems Engineer.”

1.3.4.2. Product Support Manager. The PEO ensures a PSM is assigned to all ACAT I

and II programs, MTA programs, and weapon systems identified by DAFPD 10-9. (T-0)

For ACAT I and II programs in the operation and sustainment phase, all ACAT III, and

MTA programs, the PM and PSM may be dual-hatted if approved by the implementing

command and the PEO. For Joint MDAPs where the PSM is not a DAF position, a DAF

Service PSM position is established to support the MDAP PSM. The Service PSM reports

directly to the DAF organization assigned responsibility for supporting the Joint Program

Office. The PSM is assigned concurrently with the PM. (T-1)

1.3.4.3. Chief Developmental Tester (or Test Manager). All MDAPs require a Chief

Developmental Tester, which is designated as a Key Leadership Position in accordance

with AFI 36-1301. A Test Manager is identified for all other ACAT programs. While the

Test Manager does not need to meet the more stringent workforce qualifications of the

Chief Developmental Tester, the Test Manager must be able to perform the Chief

Developmental Tester or Test Manager responsibilities as detailed in DoDI 5000.89_DAFI

99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation. (T-1)

16 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

1.3.4.4. Acquisition Intelligence Analyst. Acquisition Intelligence Analysts are program

level intelligence representatives. The Acquisition Intelligence Analyst provides advice

and counsel on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) matters and assists the

program in being fully threat informed with authoritative intelligence. The Acquisition

Intelligence Analyst ensures that intelligence information is tailored for the program and

follows guidance described in DoDI 5000.86 as well as published Intelligence Community

(National, Agency and DAF) Directives and Instructions. (T-0)

1.3.4.5. Procuring Contracting Officer. The PCO is warranted by their respective agencies

to issue legal contracts between the U.S. Government and the contractor entity. All

programmatic, technical, and other contractual requirements established by the PM for the

contractor (or proposed contractor) must be issued by the PCO.

1.3.4.6. Other Program Support. Other program support consists of resources performing

program execution activities. This includes, but is not limited to, financial management,

cost analysis, administrative contracting officer, legal, program integration, cybersecurity

(including the Authorization Official), Environment, Safety and Occupational Health

(ESOH), mission assurance, small business, program protection, security, meteorological

analysis, other engineering specialties, and other logistics support.

1.3.5. Staff Organizations. Councils, committees, advisory groups, panels and staffs at all

levels provide advice and recommendations to the PM, PEO, MDA, SAE, and DAE who are

accountable for the overall program results. The PM is responsible for and has the authority

to execute a program. Staff organizations support the PM by providing trained personnel and

advice to the PM to maximize the opportunity to successfully execute the program. Staff

organizations provide objective inputs, such as legal or engineering, to the program decision

process. Staff organizations cannot exercise or imply decision-making authority on

programmatic matters unless explicitly delegated.

1.4. Waiver Authority (Tiering) and Tailoring. Tailoring is the ability to integrate, consolidate,

incorporate, and streamline documentation to meet the intent of the requirement in the most

efficient and effective manner possible. Waiving a requirement (e.g., statute, policy, document,

etc.) is different than tailoring. Waiving a document is stating that the document does not apply,

and the intent will not be fulfilled.

1.4.1. Waivers. A waiver is a statement to relinquish or provide exceptions to a specific

requirement.

1.4.1.1. The authorities to waive Wing or unit level requirements that are outside of the

acquisition execution chain in this publication are identified with a tier (“T-0, T-1, T-2,

T-3”) number following the compliance statement. See DAF Manual (DAFMAN) 90-161,

Publishing Processes and Procedures, for a description of the authorities associated with

the tier numbers. Submit requests for waivers for tiered requirements through the chain of

command to the appropriate tier waiver approval authority, or alternately, to the requestor’s

commander for non-tiered, non-acquisition execution compliance items.

1.4.1.2. Mandates to the acquisition execution chain defined in this DAFI, including

mandates to the PEO, MDA or other DA, PM, or other program office members, are not

elevated through the organizational chain of authority; therefore, tiering in accordance with

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 17

DAFI 90-160, is not applied and the waiver authority is as specified or if not specified, to

the requestor’s DA.

1.4.1.3. Approval authority for this DAFI is the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) (SAF/AQ). Signature authority for waivers to

this DAFI is delegated to SAF/AQX; SAF/AQX will coordinate with SAF/SQX for

waivers impacting USSF or space programs. If there is a clear conflict between an

approved course of action and a DAF publication requirement, submit a DAF Form 679,

Department of the Air Force Publication Compliance Item Waiver Request/Approval, to

the publication office of primary responsibility (OPR) to obtain a waiver to requirements

or initiate changes to resolve the conflict. Conflicts are resolved by the appropriate

Headquarters Air Force (HAF) functional.

1.4.1.4. If there is a clear conflict between an approved course of action and a DoD level

issuance that cannot be addressed through tailoring, SAF/AQ will request waivers from the

appropriate DoD office regardless of the program’s categorization. USSF organizations

will route proposed waivers through SAF/SQX who will facilitate coordination with

SAF/AQ. If a waiver is required, the waiver request should be submitted to the OPR of

the DAF publication implementing the DoD issuance for appropriate staffing and approval.

If the waiver requests cannot be resolved between SAF/AQX and SAF/SQX adjudication

processes, the requests will be resolved by SAF/AQ and SAF/SQ.

1.4.1.5. Waivers for SAPs are submitted through the relevant Major Commands and Field

Commands (MAJCOM/FLDCOM) SAP management office, as designated in accordance

with AFPD 16-7for submission to SAF/AAZ for adjudication.

1.4.2. Tailoring. Tailoring recognizes that acquisition programs are not all the same. Policy

permits customized reviews, processes, and decision support information to accommodate the

unique characteristics of a program while still meeting the statutory and regulatory needs for

decision making and oversight. Tailoring ensures a program or project can balance all types

of risks, including technical, programmatic, or strategic risks in providing the needed capability

to the warfighter or user in the shortest time while ensuring affordability, supportability, system

safety and performance. Tailoring for programs is requested by the PM and approved by the

MDA or DA. This is done to make better decisions by using a systematic risk-informed

decision approach based on sufficient, relevant, and timely information. Note: Reference

DoDI 5000.02 and DAFPAM 63-128, Integrated Life Cycle Management, for more

information on tailoring.

1.4.2.1. Tailoring is documented, including the supporting rationale and citation to the

applicable statute or regulation. The PM identifies the tailoring strategy in the Acquisition

Strategy or Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) (documenting the tailoring

strategy can be waived by the DA). The DA approves the tailoring strategy as part of the

documentation approval.

1.4.2.2. Tailoring may be limited by statute or other guidance and should not result in a

requirement being waived, except as specified by statute.

1.5. PEO Portfolio Assignment or Transfer.

1.5.1. PEO Portfolio Assignment. During the requirements validation process, the

requirements sponsor informs SAF/AQ or the Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and

18 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Integration (SAF/SQ) of the potential program. Information provided contains proposed

program description, estimated dollar value, funding status, warfighter need date, and

anticipated categorization level. With input from the implementing command, SAF/AQ or

SAF/SQ assigns the effort to a PEO and includes confirmation of proposed categorization level

and the MDA. The lead command or sponsor submits a request for PEO assignment once

funding is identified and the DAF budget and program requirements have been developed and

submitted to the appropriate requirements approval authority.

1.5.1.1. PEO assignment should be initiated for all programs projected to be on the AML

prior to conducting an acquisition life cycle decision to include program initiation or

contracting decision. Acquisition life cycle decisions can be made once the PEO has

received the candidate identification memo. If the PEO decides to proceed, there is no

need to wait until the official final memo is received. Exceptions: PEO assignment is not

required for modifications to current programs which are already assigned to a PEO. UCA

programs may have the acquisition authority designated outside the PEO assignment

process.

1.5.1.2. For existing systems or systems transitioning from another agency, the sponsor

provides the program description, estimated dollar value, and funding status to SAF/AQ or

SAF/SQ for assessment. Upon acceptance and with input from the implementing

command, SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ assigns the effort to a PEO and determines the MDA.

1.5.1.3. For technology demonstration projects that may transition into acquisition

programs or deployed capability, the sponsor may request SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ temporarily

assign a PEO to support technology demonstration transition planning. Temporary PEO

assignments are revalidated on an annual basis (may be waived by SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ)

and may be transitioned to a permanent assignment based on confirmation of a validated

requirements document in coordination with the implementing command.

1.5.2. PEO Portfolio Transfer. Coordinate transfer of programs between PEO portfolios

through the implementing command(s) for approval by the SAE. The impacted organizations

prepare a joint request providing rationale and justification for the proposed transfer (T-1).

Send PEO Portfolio Assignment requests to SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ.

1.5.3. Basing Actions. Basing actions include the activation, inactivation, or adjustment, that

result in the increase, decrease, or movement of DAF and non-DAF units, missions, manpower

authorizations, or weapon systems to DAF and non-DAF locations.

1.5.3.1. Depot actions that exceed the scope of Depot Source of Repair (DSOR) processes

may be considered basing actions.

1.5.3.2. In general, PEO portfolio assignment and transfer activities will not result in a

strategic basing action. However, for actions meeting the following criteria, the

implementing command, with support from the PM, will provide a summary of the action

to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Energy

(SAF/IE) for review (may be waived by SAF/IE) and may require processing as a basing

action:

1.5.3.2.1. The movement of personnel across MAJCOM/FLDCOMs.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 19

1.5.3.2.2. Facility requirements with construction that require the use of Military

Construction (MILCON) funding or government leased space.

1.5.3.2.3. New work bringing 100 or more military or government personnel to a base.

1.5.3.2.4. Action may result in total installation growth greater than 1000 personnel,

including military, civilian, and contractor personnel.

1.5.3.2.5. Special interest or congressional actions regardless of size or scope.

1.5.3.2.6. Refer to AFI 10-503, Strategic Basing, for guidance on the basing process.

20 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 2

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

2.1. Purpose. This chapter defines roles and responsibilities and is not meant to be all inclusive;

additional complementary functional and organizational roles and the details to execute the roles

and responsibilities may be found throughout this document and other publications referenced in

Attachment 1. Responsibilities of headquarters staff are located in mission directives; the

responsibilities of SAF/AQ staff are included in HAF Mission Directive (MD) 1-10, Assistant

Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) and the responsibilities of SAF/SQ staff are included in

HAFMD 1-17, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Space Acquisition and Integration). Note:

Roles and responsibilities related to acquisition industrial preparedness are explained in Chapter

12.

2.2. Service Acquisition Executive. SAF/AQ is the SAE for DAF non-space programs. SAF/SQ

is the SAE for space programs. The SAE has overall authority for the management of DAF

acquisition programs. The SAE will:

2.2.1. Execute SAE responsibilities outlined in DoD guidance for execution of DAF

acquisitions. The SAE is responsible for the integrated life cycle management of systems and

Service programs from entry into the defense acquisition system to retirement and disposal.

This includes research, development, engineering, test, evaluation, production, delivery, and

sustainment of new systems, or modifications and support of existing systems.

2.2.2. Ensure programs, to include modifications, are properly defined and justified in budget

documentation.

2.2.3. Execute Title 10 USC Section 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities, and Title 10 USC

Section 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance of Materiel.

Ensure implementation across acquisition programs for compliance with Core and organic

requirements (T-0) Reference AFI 23-101, Materiel Management Policy, for additional

information.

2.2.4. Assign programs to PEOs.

2.3. Senior Procurement Executive (SPE). The DAF Senior Procurement Executive is the

Assistant Secretary for the Air Force for Acquisition Technology & Logistics (SAF/AQ). SAF/AQ

is designated as the single DAF SPE in accordance with 41 USC Section 1702(c). However, in

accordance with 10 USC Section 9016, Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force, as amended by

FY22 NDAA, SAF/SQ may discharge assigned duties and authorities of a SPE exclusively for

execution of space systems and programs as delegated by the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF).

2.4. Milestone Decision Authority. The MDA may also be referred to as the DA. MDA will:

2.4.1. Maintain overall responsibility for a program.

2.4.2. Approve tailoring of program strategies, life cycle phases, and documentation of

program information as proposed by the PM. Tailor oversight, documentation, timing and

scope of decision reviews and decision levels to fit particular program conditions consistent

with applicable laws and regulation.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 21

2.4.3. Be accountable for program cost, schedule, risk, and performance reporting to higher

authority, including congressional reporting.

2.4.4. Ensure that when a program enters the acquisition system at a point other than pre-

Milestone A or equivalent, all phase-specific criteria relating to a skipped milestone or other

decision point are reviewed for applicability and completed as determined appropriate by the

MDA. Reference the AAF Documentation Identification (AAFDID) tool

(https://www.dau.edu/aafdid/Pages/about.aspx), pathway-specific guidance, and DoD

acquisition guides (https://aaf.dau.edu/aaf/policies/) for milestone criteria and

documentation requirements.

2.4.5. Comply with all program milestone certification requirements as prescribed by statute

or DoD policy.

2.4.6. Conduct program oversight to assess the adequacy of all life cycle execution strategies,

planning, model, documents, and approve the termination of an acquisition program.

2.5. Program Executive Officer. The PEO will:

2.5.1. Accomplish assigned portfolio or program objectives for development, production,

sustainment, and disposal of the assigned portfolio including assigned ACAT programs and

their modifications. The PEO interacts with other PEOs with similar program content or

contractor and business segments to identify shared concerns, opportunities for leverage, and

to develop an informed position of contractor performance within the portfolio at the

department, Service, PEO, and program level. The PEO will work with the lead command and

HAF Capability Director to secure necessary funding in time to meet portfolio or program

objectives.

2.5.2. Execute oversight of the assigned portfolio of programs, in some cases as the MDA,

while continuously assessing and optimizing programs within their portfolio. For programs

with significant programmatic issues, the PEO reviews the program for restructure or

termination. When necessary to support DAF priorities and missions, the PEO recommends

shifts in investments in the portfolio.

2.5.3. Maintain knowledge of prime and major subcontractor efforts within the portfolio and

engage periodically with industry counterparts to ensure transparency and unity of effort in

portfolio execution.

2.5.4. Notify the implementing command of new missions and changes to include proposed

program realignments. The PEO will work with the implementing command to identify need

for the government program office to include facilities, personnel, and resources and validate

infrastructure investment requirements identified by the PM.

2.5.5. Work closely with the relevant laboratories, implementing commands, and the

Technology Executive Officer to maintain cognizance of and leverage pertinent science and

technology activities and advancements to develop and execute capability development

pipelines within their portfolio.

2.5.6. Ensure programs within their portfolio receive appropriate support to include

acquisition intelligence, security, facilities, and other resources in collaboration with the

implementing command.

22 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

2.5.7. Determine if modifications in their portfolio will be designated as new acquisition

programs.

2.6. Program Manager (PM). The PM will:

2.6.1. Be accountable for assigned programs through the acquisition execution chain of

authority on all matters of program cost, schedule, risk, performance, and asset disposal.

2.6.2. Be responsible for program execution, sponsor, or user support with development of

capability requirements, and deliver systems that meet documented user requirements while

seeking to minimize costs and improve readiness throughout the life cycle.

2.6.3. Implement Digital Materiel Management in assigned programs, including integrated

digital environments, where appropriate, leveraging enterprise DAF Digital tools to deliver

improved program outcomes.

2.6.4. Make a national security system (NSS) determination as outlined in Attachment 4 and

for performing annual reviews for changes in determination status.

2.6.5. Ensure compliance with all applicable regulatory and statutory guidance to include

developing and maintaining appropriate programmatic documentation and relevant available

or required model data.

2.6.6. Develop tailored and executable program strategies, models, and documentation,

appropriate for program risk and approved by the MDA.

2.6.7. Propose waivers and deviations as needed to streamline, tailor, and execute the assigned

program.

2.6.8. Ensure systems and end items meet the warfighter's sustainment and capability needs

based on an accurate Authoritative Source of Truth, which captures the current state and the

history of the technical baseline. It serves as the central reference point for models and data

across the life cycle. The authoritative source of truth will provide traceability as the system

of interest evolves, capturing historical knowledge, and connecting authoritative versions of

the models and data, reference AFI 90-7001 for additional guidance.

2.6.9. Design, build, test, and continuously update systems to consider evolving adversary

threats and address acquisition security considerations in accordance with Chapter 6,

acquisition security considerations.

2.6.10. Comply with PM responsibilities outlined in AFI 17-101, Risk Management

Framework (RMF) for Air Force Information Technology (IT).

2.6.11. Identify infrastructure and supporting requirements to the appropriate

MAJCOM/FLDCOM. Coordinate DAF plant expansion or construction efforts per Chapter

12 of this DAFI.

2.6.12. Utilize Product Groups, Modular Open Systems Architectures (MOSA) and enterprise

management of materiel, including IT infrastructure, to minimize the proliferation of system-

unique equipment when appropriate to improve interoperability, decrease costs, or for

operational and sustainment considerations. Review available and projected Enterprise IT

services for applicability to the system program (to include all components such as the prime

item, support equipment, training and simulation equipment, embedded software, and software

development environments) and leverage EIT to the maximum possible extent.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 23

2.6.13. Identify requirements and the risk associated with unmet requirements for the

government program office to include facilities, personnel, and resources and provide them to

the PEO, or designee, to work with the appropriate implementing command.

2.6.14. Coordinate and receive approval from the Air Force Life Cycle Management

Center/Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division (AFLCMC/HNC [contact AF COMSEC CCI

Authority workflow: [email protected]]) prior to any

Communications Security/Controlled Cryptographic Item (COMSEC/CCI) development,

acquisition, modernization, sustainment, disposal, or action affecting controlled cryptographic

item inventory balances. Program offices are not authorized to bypass centralized procurement

of controlled cryptographic item without approval of AFLCMC/HNC or the Chief Information

Officer (SAF/CN).

2.6.15. Identify and satisfy external certifications, reviews, and approvals applicable to the

system.

2.6.16. Ensure all appropriate program protection activities are completed and requirements

are met, reference DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113 for additional guidance.

2.6.17. Ensure all appropriate financial audit responsibilities are met, including establishing

controls and retaining documentation, to ensure accountability of assets and preparation of

accurate financial statements.

2.7. Product Support Manager. The PSM takes program direction from the PM and will:

2.7.1. Be accountable for all product support matters regarding program cost, schedule,

performance, compliance, and supportability. Additionally, the PSM ensures the program’s

product support strategy incorporates logistics, mishap, intelligence supportability and ESOH

risk data; integrated product support elements and aligns to overarching DAF enterprise

priorities.

2.7.2. Be accountable for leading program office integrated product support throughout the

system life cycle.

2.7.3. Be accountable for any formal delegation of program management authority and

assignment of programmatic responsibilities by the PM.

2.7.4. Continually assess reliability and maintainability of the weapon system and its

subcomponents throughout its life cycle.

2.8. Chief Engineer. The Chief Engineer takes program direction from the PM and will:

2.8.1. Develop and implement a comprehensive systems engineering strategy addressing the

total life cycle of the system and documents the strategy.

2.8.2. Be accountable for leading program office engineering execution throughout the system

life cycle in accordance with:

2.8.2.1. Chapter 5 , Systems Engineering.

2.8.2.2. Engineering program management and programmatic authorities formally

delegated or assigned by the PM.

2.8.2.3. Engineering or technical authorities assigned or delegated to the Chief Engineer

by specific certification authorities or DAF policy.

24 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

2.8.3. Serve as the overall Engineering and Technical Authority for the program office.

2.8.3.1. While Chief Engineers do not make final programmatic decisions, they do make

objective engineering and technical decisions that both affect and inform programmatic

decisions.

2.8.3.2. Examples of these engineering and technical decisions include, but are not limited

to, the following:

2.8.3.2.1. Identify and assess program technical risks and recommend to the PM

proposed mitigation measures.

2.8.3.2.2. Assess and approve engineering changes and make implementation

recommendations to the PM including but not limited to determining existence of

Critical Program Information.

2.8.3.2.3. The Chief Engineer ensures the delivered product design data satisfies

Technical Data Package and Model-based Technical Data Package requirements and

define the program’s Authoritative Source of Truth.

2.8.3.2.4. DAFPAM 63-128, provides more information on engineering and technical

authority, both within a program office and in organizations providing external support

to program offices.

2.8.3.2.5. AFPAM 63-129, provides information and recommended procedures for

implementing engineering development and sustainment processes and procedures for

the procurement of air systems.

2.8.3.2.6. DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113 provides guidance on protection planning

activities for the integrated management of system security and threat risks by applying

system security engineering best practices and processes.

2.9. Chief Developmental Tester (Test Manager). The Chief Developmental Tester (or Test

Manager for non-MDAPs) takes program direction from the PM and will:

2.9.1. Coordinate the planning, management, and oversight of Developmental Test and

Evaluation (DT&E) activities. See DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103 for more detailed information

on Chief Developmental Tester or Test Manager requirements and responsibilities.

2.9.2. Maintain oversight of program contractor, government, and other program-related

DT&E activities. Coordinate with the Operational Test Organization to establish integrated

testing where feasible and practicable.

2.9.3. Advise the PM on all DT&E activities including contractor testing and help PM make

technically informed, objective judgements regarding DT&E results.

2.9.4. Co-chair and provide program guidance to the Integrated Test Team, a cross- functional

team responsible for developing the program T&E strategy.

2.10. Acquisition Intelligence Analyst. Takes direction from the PM and will:

2.10.1. Provide intelligence and ISR subject matter expertise to the acquisition effort. Areas

of expertise include but are not limited to: Critical Intelligence Parameter (CIP) identification

and associated threat forecasts; tailored threat reporting (e.g., briefing, planning, risk analysis,

etc.) to include validated on-line life cycle threat activities; identification of relevant threat

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 25

models, data, and cross-program ISR dependencies; management of intelligence production

requirements (PRs) and intelligence collection requirements (CRs).

2.10.2. Manage intelligence supportability planning, to include an Intelligence Sensitivity

Determination (ISD) process for supported leadership, Intelligence Supportability Analysis

(ISA), as appropriate, and document intelligence support requirements.

2.10.3. Provide Intelligence Health Assessments (IHAs), as appropriate.

2.10.4. Assist in obtaining relevant threat support for program protection planning, critical

program information identification, anti-tamper measures, and Supply Chain Risk

Management (SCRM).

2.10.5. Partner with PMs to ensure risk associated with intelligence-sensitive programs are

considered as part of a program’s overall risk assessment that align with program timelines.

2.11. Implementing Commanders. Implementing commanders which include Commander AF

Materiel Command (AFMC/CC) and Commander, Space Systems Command (SSC) or delegate,

will:

2.11.1. Provide the SAE, PEOs, and PMs support capabilities to facilitate execution of the

acquisition execution chain of authority. This includes technical assistance, infrastructure,

modeling and simulation, test capabilities, laboratory support, professional education, training

and development, management tools, human resources, and all other aspects of support.

2.11.2. Provide pertinent science and technology activity information to PEOs about

technological advancements from DoD laboratories which could be leveraged to support

program objectives.

2.11.3. Provide the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force (CSAF), Chief of Space

Operations of the USSF (CSO), SAE, PEO, and MAJCOM/FLDCOM commanders support

for requirements formulation and phasing, continuous capability and technology planning, and

development of acquisition and life cycle sustainment strategies.

2.11.4. Support all domestic, international, and security cooperation (including FMS)

programs in which the DAF participates in accordance with a signed agreement.

2.11.5. Ensure timely and accurate intelligence analysis, information, and support is provided

to and integrated into the acquisition process; this includes designating an intelligence focal

point. Ensure the identification and documentation of derived intelligence requirements for

intelligence products and services, and assessment of intelligence-related risk during all phases

of the life cycle. Integrate intelligence supportability analysis into all life cycle models and

programming.

2.11.6. Develop processes and procedures for accurate collection and reporting of 10 USC

Section 2464 and 10 USC Section 2466 information. Maintain depot maintenance workload

mix database and analysis products.

2.11.7. Collaborate with lead commands and PMs. Collect, validate, and maintain current

requirements, priorities, and funding data by system for all elements of depot activation and

report data to Headquarters DAF upon request. Establish a central repository for depot

activation requirements data, to include associated rationale and impacts.

26 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

2.11.8. Conduct planning to support requirements and capability development activities and

decisions.

2.11.9. Charter and appoint Product Group Managers when enterprise management of

materiel used to support multiple weapon systems is desired to improve interoperability and

decrease costs through commonality.

2.11.10. Nominate a MAJCOM/FLDCOM Competition and Commercial Advocate and

Alternate (reference Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS),

Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5306.502).

2.11.11. Collect combat damage data with the purpose of enhancing survivability, reducing

casualties, and increasing operational readiness in support of Joint Air Combat Damage

Reporting.

2.12. Authorizing Official (AO). The appointed AO formally assumes responsibility for

operating Information Systems and Platform Information Technology (PIT) systems at an

acceptable level of risk.

2.12.1. DoD Information Systems and Platform Information Technology systems are not

permitted to operate on or connect to any internal or external network without AO approval.

2.12.2. Each SAF Chief Information Officer (CIO) appointed AO makes specific decisions

for systems under their purview in accordance with DoDI 8510.01, Risk Management

Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology; AFI 17-101 and AFI 17-130,

Cybersecurity Program Management.

2.12.3. The AO appointed by the A2/6 as Head of the United States Air Force (USAF)

intelligence community element accredits and makes associated risk management decisions

for all USAF Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) assets and data; ISR mission assets

and data (regardless of classification) under Intelligence Directive 503, Intelligence

Community Information Technology Systems Security Risk Management, Certification, and

Accreditation. An SCI asset includes all/any system, subsystem, component, etc., that

accesses, uses, processes or stores SCI data, as defined by ICD 703, Protection of Classified

National Intelligence, Including Sensitive Compartmented Information.

2.13. Operational Command, Direct Reporting Unit (DRU), and Field Operating Agency

(FOA) Commanders. Operational Commands (“lead command” or “using command”), FOAs

Commanders, Space Operations Command, Space Systems Command, and Space Training and

Readiness Command (STARCOM) or delegate will:

2.13.1. Develop and document capability-based requirements and accomplish analysis to

ensure needs of capability users are met. Advocate needs through the requirements process.

2.13.1.1. Collaborate with implementing commands to integrate long-term studies,

existing and future concepts, as well as existing and planned systems into DAF and DoD

investment strategies.

2.13.1.2. Submit requests to the implementing command for materiel resources in support

of early program planning to meet operational capability needs.

2.13.1.3. Coordinate with the PM on opportunities to trade between capability and system

cost through the system’s lifecycle.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 27

2.13.1.4. Coordinate with supporting intelligence support entity to ensure relevant

authoritative intelligence information is informing capability-based requirements that are

likely to result in a survivable and effective operational capability in intended threat

environment. Authoritative intelligence is that intelligence produced or provided by the

DoD intelligence community authoritative producer as defined by the DoD Functional

Manager for All-Source Intelligence (DoD FM/A). For additional information, reference

DoDI 3115.17, Management and Oversight of DoD All-Source Analysis.

2.13.2. Establish standardized procedures to review, validate, certify, prioritize, and

implement modification proposals. Ensure validated modification proposals are coordinated

with the appropriate PM and Chief Engineer for systems engineering, program planning,

testing, and cost estimation consideration. As required by the PM, Operational Commands,

Direct Reporting Units and Field Operating Agencies provide appropriate funding to support

these activities. Note: Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) kits are managed as

prescribed by AFI 23-101, Materiel Management Policy; AFMAN 23-122, Materiel

Management Procedures; and TO 00-5-15, Air Force TCTO Process.

2.13.3. Identify and provide the PM planned National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA)/Executive Order (EO) 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal

Actions analysis requirements, responsibilities and schedules for actions relating to the basing

of the system.

2.13.4. Generate use, cost, and maintenance data to support sustainment metric reporting.

2.13.5. Establish policy to assure the preservation of baselined characteristics to a system or

end-item. Ensure any configuration modification or maintenance procedure change is

approved by the PM. Ensure any new operational change or degradation of baselined

characteristics to a system or end-item is coordinated with and assessed by the PM.

2.13.6. Nominate a MAJCOM/FLDCOM Competition and Commercial Advocate and

Alternate (reference AFFARS MP 5306.502).

2.13.7. Plan and advocate for programming and budgeting for the life cycle of the systems, to

include materiel modification requirements.

2.13.8. Provide updates to the system operations concept throughout the life cycle of the

program. System operations concepts updated with planned modifications and upgrades allow

the acquisition, logistics, and test communities to better understand the intended use of the

system.

2.14. Service Intelligence Center Commander. Service Intelligence Center Commander will

support Validated Online Lifecycle Threat process as defined in Defense Intelligence Agency

(DIA) guidance.

2.15. Acquisition Security Professional. Acquisition Security Professionals, when assigned,

support PMs and Chief Engineers through identification and integration of enhanced security

measures for essential technology elements and enabling technology across the life cycle.

2.16. Technology Executive Officer (TEO). The TEO is the DAF Science and Technology

(S&T) functional equivalent of a PEO and executes responsibilities for the DAF S&T portfolio

consistent with guidance contained in AFI 61-101, Management of Science and Technology, and

paragraph 3.5..

28 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE OPERATION OF THE DEFENSE

ACQUISITION SYSTEM

3.1. Capability-Based Requirements Development. The operational community is responsible

for developing capability-based requirements as defined in AFI 10-601, Operational Capability

Requirements Documentation and Validation, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

(CJCSI) 5123.01I, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and

Implementation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), other

applicable 10-series DAF Publications, and the A5/7 Capability Development Guidebooks, Vol 2,

located on the DAF Portal. Reference pathway-specific instructions and guides for additional

requirements.

3.2. Milestone Decision Authority Determinations and Certifications. The MDA implements

all program milestone determination and certification requirements as prescribed by statute or DoD

policy. Reference AAFDID and pathway publications for guidance on MDA/DA requirements.

3.3. Acquisition Review Boards and Acquisition Strategy Panels. Reviews are integral to a

deliberative process that supports DAF leadership in making informed milestone decisions and in

performing their acquisition execution responsibilities.

3.3.1. Acquisition Review Board (also referred to as DAF Review Boards).

3.3.1.1. Acquisition Review Boards are forums chaired by the SAE, or as delegated, for

conducting major decision reviews (in- or out-of-cycle).

3.3.1.2. Acquisition Review Boards are used to develop the DAF corporate consensus

prior to an Office of the Secretary Defense (OSD) Defense Acquisition Board (pre-Defense

Acquisition Board within DAF), Information Technology Acquisition Board, or similar

board. The Acquisition Review Board should be conducted prior to OSD Integrated

Product Team reviews. The SAE, or as delegated, determines if a program requires an

Acquisition Review Board when the DAE is the MDA.

3.3.1.3. The Acquisition Review Board process is mandatory for all programs where the

SAE is the MDA unless waived by the SAE. The PEO may recommend what type of

Acquisition Review Board is necessary: full, mini (tailored attendance), or paper. Contact

SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX for Acquisition Review Board templates and additional

information.

3.3.1.4. PEOs execute a tailored review process on major decisions for other programs.

3.3.2. Acquisition Strategy Panel.

3.3.2.1. The Acquisition Strategy Panel supports the MDA. Acquisition Strategy Panels

are forums to evaluate proposed acquisition strategies to ensure all alternatives have been

considered and the best recommendation is provided to the program’s MDA for approval.

Unless delegated in writing, the MDA is the Acquisition Strategy Panel Chair (for ACAT

I and equivalent programs, the SAE is the Chair), and is the sole authority to approve

members of the panel.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 29

3.3.2.2. The PM holds an Acquisition Strategy Panel with the MDA for all pathway

programs presenting a new strategy or a significant revision to an approved strategy. (The

SAE, or PEO may waive holding an Acquisition Strategy Panel if the MDA has been

delegated).

3.3.2.3. Information concerning Acquisition Strategy Panels, such as the current draft

template for briefings, can be found at the DAF Portal at the “SAF/AQXE -

Execution/Oversight” page in the Secretariat/Acquisition Strategy Panel section or on the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition & Integration

(SAF/SQXP) Secretariat SharePoint page. Additionally, similar information pertaining to

non-SAE chaired Acquisition Strategy Panels can be found by contacting the Field

Acquisition Centers of Excellence.

3.4. Configuration Steering Board. The Configuration Steering Board reviews all requirements

changes and any significant technical configuration changes that may result in cost and schedule

impacts to the program. Changes are only approved after funds are identified and schedule impacts

mitigated. The Configuration Steering Board also provides the PM the opportunity to propose

changes, with supporting rationale addressing operational implications that may be necessary to

achieve affordability or will result in a more cost-effective product.

3.4.1. Annual Configuration Steering Boards are required for ACAT I programs, reference

DoDI 5000.85 for more information. (T-0)

3.4.2. Configuration Steering Boards typically are conducted starting at Milestone A.

3.4.2.1. Annual Configuration Steering Board reviews may be conducted with the annual

PEO Portfolio and Program Management Reviews.

3.4.2.2. Out-of-cycle Configuration Steering Board may be conducted to address specific

events. These events include:

3.4.2.2.1. CIP breach.

3.4.2.2.2. Proposed changes to program requirements expected to result in significant

technical configuration changes that could result in cost (estimated greater than $100

million) and schedule impacts (estimated delay of over six months).

3.4.2.3. Participants for ACAT I and equivalent Configuration Steering Boards include:

SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ (Chair), Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and

Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)) (Rep), CSAF Rep (A4L), lead command Requirements (e.g.,

Air Combat Command (ACC)/A5/8/9), AF/A5/7, Joint Staff, Assistant Secretary of the Air

Force (Financial Management and Comptroller) (SAF/FMB), SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ

Military Deputy, and the PEO for the program. Additional Configuration Steering Board

attendees may include: SAF/AQX, SAF/AQR, SAF/AQI, SAF/AQP, SAF/AQL,

SAF/AQQ, SAF/SQX, SAF/SQS, SAF/SQA, SF/Chief Strategy and Resource Officer,

AFMC/CC/CV/CA, SF/CC/CV/CA, USSF/T&E, General Counsel of the Air

Force/Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Division (SAF/GCQ), AF/A8P, Deputy

Assistant Secretary for Cost and Economics (SAF/FMC), SAF/CN, Secretary of the Air

Force/Small Business (SAF/SB), SAF/AQD, AF/A2/6, AF/A4, Acquisition, Fiscal Law

and Litigation Division (AF/JACQ), AF/SE, Directorate of Air Force Test and Evaluation

(AF/TE), Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center (AFOTEC), Space Systems

30 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Command Commander, Head of Contracting Authority, USSF/CTIO (Chief Technology

and Innovation Officer), and Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E).

3.4.2.4. Configuration Steering Board guidance and briefing templates are located at the

Acquisition functional page on the SAF/AQXE Oversight SharePoint page or on the

SAF/SQXP Secretariat SharePoint page.

3.4.3. The PEO ensures the intent of the Configuration Steering Board is met for other

programs by:

3.4.3.1. Ensuring a process is in place to review all requirements changes and any

significant technical configuration changes having the potential to result in cost and

schedule impacts to the program. This process includes appropriate stakeholders from the

lead command and using command or agency, HAF, and the acquisition execution chain

of authority. (T-1)

3.4.3.2. Considering a program change or termination recommendation if a CIP Breach

makes the program ineffective for its intended operational environment or by not approving

changes unless funds are identified and schedule impacts mitigated. (T-1)

3.4.3.3. Providing the PM, the opportunity to propose changes, with supporting rationale

addressing operational implications which may be necessary to achieve affordability or

will result in a more cost-effective product. (T-1)

3.5. Science and Technology. Science and technological advancements and breakthroughs play

a crucial role in providing warfighters or users with superior operational systems. Examples of

programs and processes to demonstrate, mature, and transition technologies include technology

demonstrations, experiments, operational exercises, war games, modeling and simulation, DoD

and DAF research efforts in the DoD laboratories, and commercial sources. For additional

information on science and technology activities refer to AFI 61-101.

3.5.1. PEOs provide identified portfolio needs and associated or recommended technology

solutions to the DAF Technology Executive Officer. (T-2)

3.5.2. PEOs can use Capability Collaboration Teams comprised of Subject Matter Experts

from MAJCOM/FLDCOM s, Centers and PEOs, and the Technology Executive Officer to

work collaboratively to fully understand MAJCOM/FLDCOM and Core Function Leads-

documented capability needs.

3.5.3. PMs and Chief Engineers should participate in Capability Collaboration Teams and

other planning efforts to maximize the extent of potential materiel solutions derived from

MAJCOM/FLDCOM -documented capability needs and associated technology enablers.

3.5.4. During transition from science and technology effort to an acquisition program, the PM

should coordinate with the science and technology project lead to capture information

developed during the science and technology effort. Evaluation results may lead to developing

an operational capability requirements document to transition mature and affordable

technologies for new programs or modifications to existing programs. Science and technology

efforts transitioning to an acquisition program and entering the defense acquisition system

should be sufficiently mature enough to meet the phase-specific requirements.

3.5.5. PMs and Chief Engineers consider the use of Small Business Innovation Research and

Small Business Technology Transfer when practicable. See AFI 61-102, Small Business

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 31

Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs, for more

information.

3.6. Program Work Breakdown Structure. The PM develops and tailors a Program Work

Breakdown Structure. Detailed guidance on the work breakdown structures for defense materiel

items is in Military Standard (MIL-STD)-881F, Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel

Items.

3.7. Integrated Master Plans (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedules (IMS). Refer the DoD

IMP and IMS Preparation and Use Guide for additional information.

3.8. Performance Measurement Baseline Analysis. The PM performs cost, schedule, and risk

analysis of the contractor’s Performance Measurement Baseline to assure continuing progress and

program applicability. The Performance Measurement Baseline should contain sufficient detail,

account for all scope, and reflect accurate schedules. The Performance Measurement Baseline is

reviewed to assess implementation of the contractor’s earned value system via the Integrated

Baseline Review process.

3.9. Earned Value Management (EVM). EVM is a key integrating process in the management

and oversight of acquisition programs including information technology (IT) programs. The

qualities and operating characteristics of the EVM Systems are described in American National

Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance (ANSI/EIA) Standard 748, EVM Systems. The

Defense Contract Management Agency is responsible for EVM Systems compliance and ensuring

the integrity and application effectiveness of the contractor’s EVM Systems.

3.9.1. PMs will employ EVM and EVM Systems per Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) subpart 234.2, current edition and DoDI 5000.85. (T-0) EVMS

requirements can be found in the Major Capabilities section of the AAFDID.

3.9.1.1. Waiving EVM or EVM System use requires SAE and implementing command

Senior Contracting Official (SCO) approval per AFFARS Subpart 5301.4 and DoDI

5000.85. (T-0) Coordinate requests for tailoring or waiving EVM and EVM System

requirements for MDAPs with SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX who, in turn, coordinates with the

Acquisition Data and Analytics/Integrated Program Management Division. SAE waivers

should be obtained prior to implementing DFARS deviations.

3.9.1.2. Include EVM applicability with reference to authorizing documents (regulations,

policies, instructions), waivers, and business case or cost benefit analysis (if applicable) in

the program acquisition documents submitted to the MDA.

3.9.2. Where EVM System is required, the PM or PEO ensures that:

3.9.2.1. The solicitation and contract contain the appropriate DFARS and AFFARS

provisions or clauses: DFARS 252.234-7001, 252.234-7002 and AFFARS clause 5334

(EVM), and DFARS clause 252.242-7005 (Contractor Business Systems). (T-0)

3.9.2.2. EVM is reported in accordance with DoDI 5000.85. (T-0)

3.9.2.3. Integrated Baseline Reviews are conducted in accordance with DoDI 5000.85 and

DFARS clause 252.234-7002. For additional information, see the AF Integrated Baseline

Review Process Guide. (T-0)

32 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

3.9.2.4. The IMP is prepared based on the latest version of the DoD IMP and Integrated

Schedule Preparation and Use Guide. (T-0)

3.9.3. EVM integrates the cost, schedule, and technical requirements of the program and links

them with the project’s risk management process. The PM performs the following EVM

analysis and reporting (reference DoDI 5000.85):

3.9.3.1. Validate compliance of Integrated Program Management Report (or Contract

Performance Report on older contracts) and Contract Funds Status Report, which include

reconciliation between the Integrated Program Management Report and Contract Funds

Status Report, with the Contract Data Requirements List. For contracts requiring

submission to the OSD EVM Central Repository, acceptance or rejection of each document

is in accordance with EVM – Central Repository requirements. (T-0)

3.9.3.2. Use EVM performance analysis (cost or schedule variance, indices, schedule

margins, critical or near critical path, risks, Performance Measurement Baseline integrity,

etc.) to ensure continuing progress and program applicability. Based on this analysis, the

PM develops a risk based independent Estimate at Completion.

3.9.3.3. Prior month level-one data along with the PM’s independent estimate at

completion for each contract is reported for inclusion in the MAR. See Chapter 11 for

more information.

3.9.4. EVM requirements for Over Target Baselines or Over Target Schedules.

3.9.4.1. An Over Target Baseline is defined as an EVM baseline that exceeds contract

value. An Over Target Schedule is defined as a schedule that exceeds the contractually

required delivery dates.

3.9.4.2. The PM ensures SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ is notified through the MAR of any Over

Target Baseline or Over Target Schedule prior to implementation and upon completion.

3.9.4.3. Contractor reporting may not be waived while implementing an over-target

baseline, unless otherwise agreed to by SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX. At a minimum, Actual

Cost Work Performed is reported during the Over Target Baseline or Over Target Schedule

in Format 1 of the Integrated Program Management Report (or Contract Performance

Report on older contracts).

3.9.4.4. Programs implementing an Over Target Baseline or Over Target Schedule need

to conduct a subsequent Integrated Baseline Review on the revised baseline.

3.9.5. Single Point Adjustment (SPA), sometimes referred to as re-baselining, refers to

eliminating cumulative performance variances (setting cost or schedule variances to zero).

SPAs are not performed solely to improve contract performance metrics. Therefore, SPAs,

which set cost variances to zero, are not permitted without the execution of an Over Target

Baseline formal reprogramming action or PEO authorization with coordination by SAF/AQX

or SAF/SQX.

3.10. Affordability Analysis. All MCA programs require an Affordability Analysis. (T-0) See

DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151, for additional information.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 33

3.11. Post Implementation Review. Post Implementation Reviews are executed in accordance

with pathway specific publications. For more information, refer to DoDI 5000.82, Acquisition of

Information Technology (IT) and the AAFDID.

3.12. Independent Reviews. The PEO and implementing command/CCs, with SAF/AQ or

SAF/SQ coordination, may conduct independent reviews (e.g., Supply chain, Readiness of Combat

Capabilities Review or Technology, Acquisition and Sustainment Reviews) of programs and other

acquisition activities to gain insight to improve the acquisition and sustainment of weapons

systems. These reviews include recommendations with the intent to identify and address

systematic problems in process, training, or organization. Independent reviews can also include

Independent Program Assessments whenever directed by the MDA. For best practices and

schedule recommendations refer to DAFPAM 63-128.

3.13. Weapon and Cyber Legality Reviews. The PM ensures that reviews for legality are

accomplished for weapons, weapon systems, and cyber capabilities at the earliest stage possible in

accordance with AFI 51-401, The Law of War, for all applicable acquisition and modification

programs.

3.14. Program Terminations. It may be necessary to terminate a program for a variety of

reasons including a Presidential, congressional, DoD, or DAF Leadership decision, change in

threat, poor contractor performance, or withdrawal of funding. The termination decision and plan

is approved by the MDA and documented in an ADM. SAF/AQC, on behalf of SAF/AQ and

SAF/SQ, acts as the DAF Department liaison for terminations per DFARS 249.7001 and

Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 249.70, Special Termination Requirements.

3.14.1. The PM notifies the Head of Contracting Activity and SAF/AQC of all program

terminations of AML programs upon the termination decision. The PM also notifies SAF/SB

if termination involves small businesses. The Head of Contracting Activity or SAF/AQC

notifies OSD when applicable and coordinates with the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Financial Management and Comptroller)/Budget and Appropriations Liaison Directorate

(SAF/FML) and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Legislative Liaison) (SAF/LL) to make

congressional notifications prior to termination actions.

3.14.2. Upon termination decision, the PM develops a termination plan to describe how to

close the program down in an expeditious, orderly manner with the least impact to the

government.

3.14.3. For the termination plan templates, reference DAFPAM 63-128.

3.15. Exportability Reviews and Waivers. The PM will review at each milestone the feasibility

of exportable and interoperable configurations based on an analysis of the current and future

international market and mission needs. (T-0) PMs opting for a U.S.-only design will comply with

approval and reporting guidance in DoDI 5000.85. (T-0)

3.15.1. The PM for MTA pathway programs will review the feasibility of exportable and

interoperable configurations as part of transition planning. (T-0)

3.15.2. The PM for MCA pathway programs will review and document the feasibility of

exportable and interoperable configurations as part of Milestone reviews (reference DoDI

5000.85_DAFI 63-151). (T-0)

34 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

3.15.3. In accordance with DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151, MDAPs pursuing a U.S.-only design

and not planning for system export require an MDA-approved exportability waiver.

3.15.4. Waivers will be coordinated with Secretary of the Air Force International Affairs,

Policy, and Programs Directorate (SAF/IAP) prior to official request submission to the MDA.

3.16. National Security System Designation Determination. NSS are as defined in 44 USC

3552(b)(6), 44 USC 3553(e)(2) and 44 USC 3553(e)(3). NSS determination will be performed for

all programs and documented in the acquisition strategy, Air Force Information Technology

Investment Portfolio Suite (ITIPS), and the Project Management Resource Tool (PMRT) tool.

(T-1)

3.16.1. The PM in coordination with the program protection representative, the Trusted

Systems and Networks (TSN) representative, and other program stakeholders, will make an

NSS determination using the criteria found in Figure A4.1., Attachment 4 as a guide for any

system that shares information prior to program initiation. (T-0) This information will be

reviewed for any change in status at least annually. (T-1) Status of NSS determination will

also be included in PMRT. (T-1)

3.16.2. Contact SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX for additional guidance on resolving disputes

between the PM and external offices concerning NSS determinations.

3.16.3. The PM will ensure security and engineering activities applicable to NSS are

performed. Reference Chapter 6 for more information.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 35

Chapter 4

PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

4.1. Program Integration. It is a responsibility of all PMs to demonstrate and document how

they integrate cost, schedule, performance, and threat risk information into program decisions.

Successful program integration requires involvement of each functional expert within the program

office to provide informed guidance and recommendations.

4.2. Program Documentation. The PM is responsible for completing all applicable program

documentation as outlined by statute and policy.

4.2.1. Document Content. All new and existing programs requiring OSD oversight ensure

documentation is prepared consistent with OSD approved outlines or templates. For other

programs, the MDA determines how to capture the information requirements. The PM is

responsible for ensuring that the content of the plans meets all applicable statutory and

regulatory requirements.

4.2.2. Document Approval Authority. Document approval authority is included in the

AAFDID, functional specific guidance and pathway-specific policy.

4.2.2.1. When the SAE is the MDA, the SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ military or principal deputy

has signature authority for MDA approved documentation, unless restricted by statute,

regulation, or instruction.

4.2.2.2. If draft documentation is required for a review, the document is approved at the

level below the approval authority. For example, if the SAE is the approval authority, then

the document is approved by the PEO prior to the review.

4.2.3. Document Coordination. Documentation in the form of digitalized information (e.g.,

system models, simulations, product data analysis) that is sourced from data-centric

environments and architectures, and with positive authoritative validation, may be utilized in

lieu of document-based formats (e.g., printouts, slides, .pdf) with prior agreement from OSD

and the MDA to coordinate data accessibility, understanding, and compatibility in support of

a review or documentation requirement.

4.2.3.1. The PM is responsible for coordination within the PEO chain.

4.2.3.2. For documents approved outside of the PEO chain, once the PEO approves the

document it should be sent directly to the approval authority of the document. Prior to

PEO approval, the PM also coordinates with outside organizations that will directly support

the implementation of the plan. Once the document is approved by the PEO, it is the

responsibility of the approval authority to coordinate the document with other HAF,

MAJCOM, FLDCOM or other organizations required for the approval authority signature.

The approval authority should consolidate comments from the organizations required for

their approval, determine if the document is ready for signature, concur or non-concur, and

present a consolidated view to the PM and PEO.

4.2.3.3. OSD approved documentation is coordinated in accordance with OSD direction.

Unless waived by the SAE, the PM will coordinate documentation approved or requested

by the DAE through the SAE.

36 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.2.3.4. Offices must expedite coordination within the time specified by the MDA, PEO,

or PM and either concur or non-concur. Concurrence and coordination by parties involved

may not be necessary for an MDA to make a decision. However, staff packages should

reflect the non-concur and stated reasons so the MDA can make an informed decision.

Format driven changes should not result in delaying the coordination process. The PM,

reviewing office, and staff should use automated tools, as available, to streamline

coordination and approval.

4.2.4. Document Storage. PM ensures program documentation is maintained and made

available electronically in adherence to AFI 33-322 and are disposed in accordance with the

Air Force Records Disposition Schedule. Acquisition documentation for all pathway programs

will be retained through the life of the system in a central repository. (T-1) The recommended

central repository is the Acquisition Information Repository. The Acquisition Information

Repository also meets the requirement for official electronic records management. The PM

will submit all signed Acquisition Decision Memoranda and final milestone documents for

MDAPs, MDAP equivalents, and special interest programs to the Acquisition Information

Repository within five business days of document approval. (T-0)

4.3. Acquisition Strategy. The Acquisition Strategy is the overall life cycle strategy for the

system. The PM develops an Acquisition Strategy that documents the life cycle strategies

necessary to satisfy statutory and regulatory requirements. (T-0) For more information, refer to

the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 7.1, DFARS Subpart 207.1, the applicable

DoDI 5000-series regulation(s), the AAFDID and DAFPAM 63-128.

4.3.1. The MDA approves the Acquisition Strategy prior to release of a formal solicitation.

(T-1 (if MDA is PEO or delegated))

4.3.2. At the discretion of the MDA, the Acquisition Strategy for a modification may be an

annex to the existing and approved system strategy.

4.3.3. Fact-of-life changes, such as updates to schedule and funding adjustments, do not

require a re-coordination of the Acquisition Strategy unless they drive a significant change

(e.g., change in contract type, change in quantities) in the approved strategies or Acquisition

Program Baseline (APB).

4.3.4. Existing programs that do not currently have a strategy should prepare an Acquisition

Strategy when the program enters a new milestone or decision point.

4.3.5. Acquisition strategy panel charts used as the Acquisition Strategy need to meet all

statutory and regulatory requirements.

4.4. Program Baseline. The PM ensures each program establishes goals for cost, schedule, and

performance parameters (or alternative quantitative management controls) to describe the program

over its life cycle. (T-0)

4.4.1. The baseline is approved by the MDA. Approved program baseline parameters will

serve as control objectives. Reference the AAFDID, pathway-specific guidance, Title 10 USC

Section 4371-4375, Cost Growth Unit Reports (Nunn-McCurdy), and Title 10 USC Section

4214, Baseline Description, for detailed requirements

4.4.2. For programs requiring an Acquisition Program Baseline (APB), the original APB is

prepared prior to the program entering Engineering and Manufacturing Development or

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 37

program initiation, whichever occurs later. Review the APB at each subsequent milestone

decision and full rate production to determine if updates or changes are necessary. Update the

APB at significant or critical 10 USC Section 4371-4375 (Nunn-McCurdy) cost breaches.

4.5. Risk-Based Program Management and Decision Making. PMs for all programs,

including commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and non-developmental item programs, identify,

analyze, track and mitigate risks addressed during program reviews. (T-1)

4.5.1. The PM prepares a risk management plan that documents the program’s use of standard

risk management processes (T-0) (reference pathway supplements, DAFPAM 63-128 or DoDI

5000.83_DAFI 63-113, and the Department of Defense Risk, Issue, and Opportunity

Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs). Among other content, the risk

management plan addresses how the program is performing and integrating risk-based source

selection, system safety and mission assurance, T&E, threat, intelligence supportability,

acquisition security, supply chain, ESOH, Human System Integration (HSI), industrial base

constraints, and supply chain risk management. Additionally, it addresses cost, schedule,

technical, product support, operational, cybersecurity, and system security risks. The risk

management plan for space programs addresses risk-based performance for space debris

mitigation assessments and documentation for space and launch systems per AFI 91-202, The

US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program. It also describes the responsibilities of cross-

functional risk management Integration Product Team or equivalent. The risk management

plan can be incorporated into the Acquisition Strategy or other appropriate planning document.

Link the risk management plan to risk management activities in other planning documents and

continually update the risk management process and its implementation throughout the

system’s life cycle.

4.5.1.1. The PM uses the likelihood criteria, consequence criteria, and 5x5 risk matrix

provided in Attachment 3, Figure A3.1., Figure A3.2, and Tables A3.1-A3.4, to evaluate,

document, and present cost, schedule, performance, and other program risks. (T-1) These

likelihood and consequence criteria support risk comparability across programs. However,

if the PM determines that the criteria are not appropriate for assessing and managing a

program’s risks, the PM may tailor the criteria, if approved by the MDA, in accordance

with the tailoring guidance in Chapter 1. Reference DAFPAM 63-128 for more

information.

4.5.1.2. The PM will prepare risk handling and mitigation plans for all identified 5x5 risk

matrix high, moderate, and selected low risks unless waived by the MDA. The PM ensures

a mechanism is in place to track and archive all risks and handling and mitigation plans

throughout the program’s life cycle.

4.5.1.3. The PM presents risk information as a part of all programs, technical, and

milestone decision reviews or to support other decision points unless waived by the MDA.

On the risk matrix, the PM plots, and is prepared to discuss, each of the program’s

identified high and moderate risks and their corresponding handling and mitigation plans

unless waived by the MDA. The PM includes all High and Serious ESOH and technical

program risks identified using MIL-STD-882E, DoD Standard Practice for System Safety,

plotted on the standard 4x5 Risk Assessment Code (RAC) matrix using the translation

matrix in Attachment 3 unless waived by the MDA. The PM coordinates cybersecurity

risk information with the MDA and AO prior to decision reviews, reference DoDI 5000.90,

38 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Cybersecurity for Acquisition Decision Authorities and Program Managers for more

information. (T-0) The PM should identify to the MDA and the PEO if there is a risk of

the AO non-concurring at the decision review.

4.5.2. Risk-based Source Selection. The source selection approach, as part of the Acquisition

Strategy, is developed to select the right contractor to reduce risk over the life cycle of the

program and get the best business deal for the DAF. This includes identifying supplier risks,

foreign influences risks, cybersecurity vulnerabilities (if applicable) and those identified in

paragraph 6.13. This should inform key technical and appropriate program risks and the

formulation of source selection evaluation criteria. Source selection guidance and procedures

are contained in FAR Part 15, DFARS Part 215, AFFARS 5315 and AFFARS Mandatory

Procedure 5315.3.

4.5.3. Cost Risk Management. The PM has responsibility for cost risk management and may

adjust program decisions based on potential cost variation and uncertainties, or market

research. Identify uncertainty feeding the overall programs’ costs from the risks and risk

handling and mitigation activities associated with prediction of future costs based on current

knowledge of technical, schedule and market research. Uncertainty in this case is program risk

associated with the ability to achieve life cycle cost objectives. A program’s cost estimator

has the responsibility for supporting the PM’s integrated cost risk management efforts, utilizing

methods and cost management principles outlined in AFPD 65-5, Cost and Economics; and

AFI 65-508, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures.

4.5.4. Schedule Risk Management. The PM has execution responsibility for schedule risk

management and should utilize appropriate tools to develop, guide, and manage associated

risks. Schedule risk includes schedule uncertainty due to manufacturing, contracting, and

subcontracting, testing, government rules or impediments, uncertainty in work, software

development, unrealistic schedules, natural causes, and complexity. All programs maintain an

IMS and review it frequently including analyzing a program’s “critical path” to determine and

manage potential risks associated with schedule slips.

4.5.5. Technical Risk Management. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, has execution

responsibility for technical risk management, and utilizes systems engineering throughout the

life cycle to manage program technical risks. Technical risk management includes risk-based

prototype planning and development. It also considers design, manufacturing, technology

maturity, forecast threat advancements, intelligence supportability, cybersecurity risks,

software development, risks of mishaps, nuclear surety, integration, interoperability, and

supportability, testing risks, and threats to mission critical functionality and critical program

information.

4.5.5.1. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, should identify and track risks

associated with achieving the appropriate Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) of all

critical technologies. Note: Technology Readiness Levels values are indicators of

technical maturity and not risk since they are unrelated to consequence of occurrence. See

the DoD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance for information on TRLs.

4.5.5.2. The Chief Engineer ensures that relevant engineering information and

recommendations, including underlying assumptions and risks, are made available to the

PM and senior leaders in the acquisition execution chain of authority in accordance with

DoDI 3200.20. (T-0)

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 39

4.5.5.3. Risk of a Mishap Identification, Assessment, and Acceptance. SAF/AQR (DAF

lead) will coordinate with SAF/SQA to implement the following provisions, for space

systems and programs. SAF/SQ retains decision authority on high-risk acceptance for

space systems and programs.

4.5.5.3.1. Refer to AFI 91-202, The US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, for

detailed direction regarding assessment documentation of the risks of mishaps and

SAF/AQ risk acceptance authorities.

4.5.5.3.2. Acquisition and sustainment programs can identify hazards and risks of

mishaps through multiple processes. Identification and assessment processes include,

but are not limited to, the internal Program Office System Safety process defined in

AFI 91-202; the independent USAF Airworthiness assessment and approval

procedures defined in DAFI 62-601, Airworthiness; and the Aircraft Structural

Integrity Program assessment criteria as defined in DAFI 63-140 and MIL-STD 1530.

4.5.5.3.3. In the event a non-space Program Office identifies a potential High risk of a

mishap on a fielded system, the PEO must as soon as possible notify the system Lead

Command and SAF/AQR. The Lead Command and PEO must then determine whether

they should remove the system from service until the Program Office can either

eliminate or mitigate the potential mishap cause. If removal from service is not a viable

option, then the PEO must work with the Lead Command and SAF/AQR to determine

how to reach agreement on an Interim High-risk acceptance by either the Lead

Command or SAF/AQ or both. The Interim High-risk acceptance is to allow the

Program Office the time to prepare and staff a request in accordance with AFI 91-202

for SAF/AQ and the Lead Command to accept formally the High risk for the time-

period needed to eliminate or mitigate the potential mishap cause. This process is to

meet the DoD policy that DoD cannot expose people, equipment, or the environment

to a known mishap cause without first accepting the risk.

4.5.5.3.4. Regardless of the method by which the non-space Program Office has

become aware of a potential High-risk of a mishap on a system, the Program Office

must work with SAF/AQR to identify the information that must be included in the

request for SAF/AQ and the system Lead Command to accept the High risk of a mishap.

At a minimum, the package must include the following:

4.5.5.3.4.1. Validation of the High-risk assessment in accordance with the staffing

process defined in AFI 91-202.

4.5.5.3.4.2. The potential mission impacts of removing the system from service

until the potential mishap cause can be eliminated or the risk mitigated.

4.5.5.3.4.3. The potential options to eliminate or mitigate the risk of a mishap.

4.5.5.3.4.4. The recommended option(s) and the rationale for the

recommendation(s), to include the rationale for not implementing identified

mitigation options.

4.5.5.3.4.5. The cost, schedule, and performance impacts, and estimated losses of

each potential elimination or mitigation option.

4.5.6. Independent Technical Risk Assessments (ITRA).

40 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.5.6.1. ITRAs are conducted and approved by the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) on all ACAT ID programs in

accordance with DoDI 5000.88. (T-0)

4.5.6.2. SAF/AQR conducts ITRAs for non-space ACAT IB/IC programs in accordance

with DAF Independent Technical Assessment Guidebook with support from center-level

engineering functional offices. (T-1) SAF/SQA conducts ITRAs in collaboration with

SAF/AQR for space ACAT 1B/1C programs.

4.5.6.3. The PM will support ITRA execution by:

4.5.6.3.1. Planning ITRAs as a life cycle event in the program plans, including but not

limited to Acquisition Strategy, Systems Engineering Plan (SEP), and IMS. (T-1)

4.5.6.3.2. Providing access to programmatic and technical information and facilitating

ITRA team visits to the program office, product centers, test centers, and contractor(s)

facilities. (T-1)

4.5.6.3.3. Referencing the DAF Independent Technical Assessment Guidebook for

comprehensive guidance.

4.5.7. Product Support Risk Management. The PM, with support from the PSM, has execution

responsibility for product support risk management and utilizes applicable logistics assessment

tools throughout the life cycle of the program to manage product support risks. See Chapter

7 for required product support and logistics assessments.

4.5.8. Information Technology (IT) Risk Management. The Risk Management Framework

for DoD IT defines the process to determine and manage the residual cybersecurity risk to the

DAF created by the vulnerabilities and threats associated with objectives in military,

intelligence, and business operations. Reference AFI 17-101 for additional information.

4.5.8.1. DoD IT includes DoD information systems, platform IT, IT services, and

products. This includes IT supporting RDT&E, and DoD-funded or controlled IT operated

by a contractor or other entity on behalf of the DoD.

4.5.8.2. The PM ensures all systems with IT implement risk management procedures

aligned with the Risk Management Framework throughout all phases of the life cycle in

accordance with DoDI 8500.01, Cybersecurity; DoDI 8510.01, DoDI 5000.90, AFPD 17-

1, Information Dominance Governance and Management; AFPD 14-4, Management of the

AF ISR and Cyber Effects Operations Enterprise ; AFI 17-101 and AFMAN 14-403,

Sensitive Compartmented Information Security and Intelligence, Surveillance, and

Reconnaissance Systems Cybersecurity and Governance. (T-0)

4.5.8.3. The PM coordinates risk management framework results with the AO throughout

all phases of the life cycle. (T-0)

4.5.8.4. The PM provides required cybersecurity documentation to and obtains

authorization from the AO before the system under development is operated or connected

to any internal or external network. (T-0)

4.5.8.5. For all DAF SCI assets and data, ISR mission assets and data (regardless of

classification), and Guest SCI/ISR assets and data, risk management framework is

implemented under Intelligence Community Directive 503 and AFMAN 14-403. (T-0)

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 41

4.5.8.6. For all DAF SAP assets and data, risk management framework is implemented

under AFI 17-101 and supplemental policies for the SAP community.

4.5.9. Test and Evaluation Risk Management. The PM has execution responsibility for T&E

risk management and utilizes both system engineering and T&E processes throughout the life

cycle to manage program risks. T&E risk management considers test resources, test schedule,

certifications, and technical risks (to include the PM’s safety release and test-related

environmental impact analyses and mitigations) from a T&E perspective. Refer to DoDI

5000.89_DAFI 99-103 for more information on T&E processes.

4.5.10. Risk Management for O&M. The PM assists the system operators and maintainers in

the application of risk management by providing the assessment of hazards and potential

handling and mitigation measures. Assistance could also include the environmental

characteristics of the system (air pollutants, noise profile, etc.) needed for environmental

impact analysis. Refer to AFI 90-802, Risk Management, for more information.

4.5.11. Threat Risk Management. The PM consolidates threat assessments and projections,

including those for CIPs, related to the operational environment throughout the life cycle of

the program. The PM evaluates impacts using programmatic risk management processes to

include threats into program risk decisions.

4.5.12. The Intelligence Health Assessment (IHA) and Intelligence Risk Management. IHAs

consider a program’s intelligence supportability and threat status. IHA factors will be

evaluated and incorporated into a program’s overall risk. Intelligence dependent programs

work with Acquisitions Intelligence Analysts to conduct IHAs, and brief risks internally at

PMRs. The PM will endorse and evaluate the IHAs every 24 months and store on SIPRnet at

https://intelshare.intelink.sgov.gov/sites/aicwg/SitePages/Home.aspx#. (T-2)

4.5.13. Acquisition Security Risk Management. The PM ensures acquisition security risks are

included in in all phases of life cycle of the program. Acquisition security risk assessments

consider the system’s intended operational environment when determining vulnerabilities

emanating from and provided to system interfaces.

4.5.14. Human System Integration (HSI) Risk Management. The PM ensures that risks

associated with the HSI domains (human factors engineering, personnel, habitability,

manpower, training, safety and occupational health, and force protection and survivability) are

addressed throughout the life cycle.

4.6. Small Business Integrated Life Cycle Management Activities. The PM in conjunction

with the PCO ensures that small business is an integral part of the life cycle from early acquisition

through system demilitarization and disposal to help meet small business goals set by the PEO.

Early considerations to provide maximum practicable opportunities for small business include pre-

acquisition market research and requirements definition categorization planning, principally in

support of the MDD and Analysis of Alternatives, to ensure approval authorities are offered trade

space for portfolio and risk management. See AFI 90-1801, Small Business Programs, for more

information.

4.7. Intellectual Property (IP). The PM will solicit the opinions of the SAF/AQCC IP Cadre,

USSF/CTIO (for USSF acquisitions), and legal counsel when drafting the Acquisition Strategy

and the RFP/RPP/CSO, before contract award, and during contract administration with respect to

IP matters.

42 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.7.1. IP Strategy in the Acquisition Strategy. During Acquisition Strategy development, the

PM will assess IP and develop an IP Strategy that will be included in the Acquisition Strategy.

(T-0) The IP strategy identifies the IP needed to accomplish the program’s product support

strategy to maintain competition throughout the life cycle and respond to the program’s

intelligence threat characterization and supportability considerations. The PM reviews the

government requirement for IP throughout the life cycle of the system. Reference DoDI

5010.44, Intellectual Property (IP) Acquisition and Licensing for more on the IP strategy. The

IP Strategy will identify:

4.7.1.1. IP deliverable content requirements (Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs))

and their estimated cost. Such deliverables will include, but not be limited to:

4.7.1.1.1. Technical baseline documentation for all Hardware Configuration Items and

Computer Software Configuration Items residing within the system identified in the

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and, if appropriate, the Government Reference

Architecture (GRA) and contractor Weapon System Architecture Model (WSAM)

(digital model) (i.e., system architecture). This documentation will include all

deliverables needed to implement a Modular Open System Approach (MOSA) (e.g.,

modular system interfaces) for all modular systems and major system interfaces

identified in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and, if appropriate, the

Government Reference Architecture (GRA) and contractor Weapon System

Architecture Model (WSAM) (digital model). (T-1)

4.7.1.1.2. IP required to support:

4.7.1.1.2.1. Organic source of repair and supply decisions.

4.7.1.1.2.2. Government Core depot maintenance capability requirements.

Indicate the extent to which the program has solicited input from government

software providers (e.g., the 309th Software Engineering Group (SWEG)) to

determine what software-related IP deliverables they would need to perform

software maintenance.

4.7.1.1.2.3. Expeditionary logistics footprint requirements.

4.7.1.1.2.4. Engineering data requirements needed for life cycle activities such as

integrity programs, sustaining engineering, reliability management, airworthiness

assessments, and configuration management.

4.7.1.1.2.5. Technical Orders (TOs).

4.7.1.1.2.6. Re-procurement, modification, or upgrade.

4.7.1.1.2.7. Demilitarization and disposal.

4.7.1.1.2.8. Cybersecurity strategies.

4.7.1.1.2.9. Technology refreshment or enhancement.

4.7.1.1.2.10. Training and training program information.

4.7.1.1.2.11. Spare parts procurement.

4.7.1.1.2.12. Testing and Evaluation.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 43

4.7.1.1.2.13. Mission data production and intelligence data sufficiency analysis.

4.7.1.1.2.14. Competitive contractor logistics support (CLS).

4.7.1.1.2.15. Supply chain management.

4.7.1.1.2.16. Depot level reparable and consumables procurement.

4.7.1.1.2.17. Support equipment procurement and maintenance.

4.7.1.1.2.18. Special tools and tooling.

4.7.1.1.2.19. Diminishing manufacturing sources & material shortages (DMSMS).

4.7.1.1.3. If not acquiring technical data, computer software, or associated IP rights for

organic support, a summary of the business case analysis justifying the decision will

be included in the MDA approved Acquisition Strategy. (T-1)

4.7.1.2. IP license rights and their estimated cost. The IP strategy will include a

description of the IP licenses that will define the scope of the rights the program needs to

the IP deliverables to be acquired. This description will include the purpose for which the

IP content will be used, with whom the Government needs to share it, and for how long the

Government needs to share it. Include a description of the specially negotiated licenses

the program seeks to acquire that will govern the use, release, or disclosure of contract

administration information (e.g., Earned Value Management (EVM), Integrated Program

Management Data and Analysis Report (IPMDAR)), as DFARS does not prescribe a

standard license for such IP. (T-0)

4.7.1.3. The minimum required level of system and software modularity (MOSA) needed

to accomplish product support and intelligence threat characterization objectives. (T-0)

4.7.1.4. To the maximum practicable extent, source selection evaluation criteria that will

evaluate the degree to which offerors propose to deliver, furnish, or otherwise provide, all

IP content and IP licenses required by the request for proposals, and what level of

system/software modularity they propose to deliver across all relevant evaluation factors

(Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price). (T-0)

4.7.1.5. The degree to which performance-based payments, award fees, or incentive

payments will be tied to verified contractor compliance with applicable IP deliverable, IP

licenses, and system/software modularity requirements. (T-1)

4.7.2. IP in Requests for Proposals (RFP)/Requests for Prototype Proposals

(RPP)/Commercial Solutions Openings (CSO). Consistent with the program’s Acquisition

Strategy and SEP, the RFP/RPP/CSO will identify:

4.7.2.1. IP deliverables: All those specified in paragraphs 4.7.1.1. (T-0)

4.7.2.2. IP licenses: All those specified in paragraph 4.7.1.2. To the maximum

practicable extent, the RFP/RPP/CSO will baseline the level of IP rights the offeror will

grant to the IP content it will deliver under a particular CDRL to a single level per CDRL.

(T-1)

4.7.2.3. The minimum required level of system and software modularity (MOSA) needed

to accomplish product support and intelligence threat characterization objectives. (T-0)

44 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.7.2.4. To the maximum practicable extent, source selection evaluation criteria that will

evaluate the degree to which offerors propose to deliver, furnish, or otherwise provide, all

IP content and IP licenses required by the request for proposals and what level of

system/software modularity they propose to deliver across all relevant evaluation factors

(Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price). (T-0)

4.7.2.5. The degree to which performance-based payments, award fees, or incentive

payments will be tied to verified contractor compliance with applicable IP deliverable, IP

licenses, and system/software modularity requirements. (T-1)

4.7.2.6. If appropriate, IP pricing options that correspond to the recommended IP rights in

the Acquisition Strategy. (T-0)

4.7.3. IP in Contracts/Other transaction agreements (OTA). Contracts and OTAs will be

structured as follows:

4.7.3.1. Users will be able to quickly identify what price the Government agreed to pay

the contractor to acquire the IP license (commercial, noncommercial) the contractor

granted to the Government that will govern the use, release, or disclosure of each IP

deliverable (Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs)) the contractor will deliver,

furnish, or otherwise provide during contract performance that, if applicable, describes or

will be the technical baseline for all Hardware Configuration Items (HWCI) and Computer

Software Configuration Items (CSCI) residing at the appropriate level of indenture of the

WBS, the GRA, and the WSAM needed to accomplish the program’s product support

strategy to maintain competition throughout the life cycle and respond to the program’s

intelligence threat characterization/supportability considerations. In other words, contracts

and OTAs will “map” the pricing to the IP license to the IP deliverable to, if applicable,

the HWCI/CSCI reflected in the WBS to the GRA to the WSAM (digital model) (i.e.,

system architecture). The PM will ensure that adequate due diligence is performed prior

to award to ensure that IP content to be delivered to the DAF/USSF is properly classified

as a commercial product/service, and that contracts/OTAs clearly differentiate between

noncommercial IP and commercial IP content delivered to the DAF/USSF (and IP licenses

that govern the use, release, and disclosure of that IP).

4.7.3.2. The PM will identify the minimum required level of system and software

modularity (MOSA) needed to accomplish product support and intelligence threat

characterization objectives. (T-0)

4.7.3.3. To the maximum practicable extent, they will tie performance-based payments,

award fees, or incentive payments to verified contractor compliance with applicable IP

deliverable, IP licenses, and system/software modularity requirements. (T-1)

4.7.4. IP During Contract/OTA Administration.

4.7.4.1. The PM will implement measures sufficient to ensure that IP deliverables are

reviewed for accuracy and completeness in a timely manner. Reviews will include a

determination regarding whether the restrictive markings affixed to deliverables are

conforming and justified. (T-1)

4.7.4.2. If IP deliverable content or restrictive markings affixed to that content do not

comply with contract requirements, the PM will promptly notify the

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 45

contracting/agreements officer to determine what remedies the DAF should implement.

(T-1) Such remedies include, but are not limited to, issuing pre-challenge requests for

information and formal challenges, issuing contracting officer final decisions, withholding

payment, withholding acceptance, adverse past performance evaluations (Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)), partial termination for default,

suspension, and debarment. (T-1)

4.7.5. Maintain updated digital product design data in the standardized system throughout

operation and sustainment.

4.7.6. Document in the IP strategy the rationale for deviations (if any) from the above IP

requirements.

4.7.6.1. The PM will ensure that the Acquisition Strategy, resulting RFP/RPP/CSO, and

resulting contract(s)/agreements include, to the maximum extent practicable, negotiation

for, and periodic delivery of, all technical data, computer software, and computer software

documentation specified in DoDI 5000.87_DAFI 63-150. When an offeror or contractor

is unwilling to provide source code as a deliverable, the PM should consider the impact on

the program’s Acquisition Strategy (i.e., product support strategy, intelligence threat

inputs/supportability considerations). (T-0) In assessing program impact and developing

recommended COAs for MDA decision and approval, the PM should consult with the

program legal team, contracting/agreements officer, SAF/AQC IP Cadre, and other

supporting organizations to develop a thorough understanding of impacts.

4.7.6.2. The PM provides the contracting/agreements officer with the IP software-related

content requirements (CDRLs) and associated tasking statements (SOW/PWS) for

inclusion into the RFP/RPP/CSO, which identify the hardware, software and other

resources needed for life cycle support of deliverable software and describe the developer’s

plans for transitioning deliverable items necessary for software sustainment to the DAF.

4.7.6.3. The IP strategy addresses the potential for changes in computer software

sustainment over the life cycle of the system or subsystem. RFPs/RPPs/CSOs and

contracts/OTAs should contain deferred ordering provisions, when a firm requirement for

a particular computer software item(s) has not been established prior to contract award but

there is a potential need (e.g., organic sustainment) for the IP.

4.7.7. Life Cycle Management of Digital Product Design Data. The PM generates digital

product design data or requires delivery of contractor-generated digital product design data as

part of the program’s IP strategy. The PM is responsible for:

4.7.7.1. Leveraging the technical expertise of the Engineering Data Management Offices

within the centers to ensure government (e.g. MIL-STD-31000B, Technical Data

Packages) and non-government standards (e.g., ASME Y14.47, Model Organization

Practices) are effectively invoked in CDRL deliverables for legacy technical data packages

(DI-SESS-80776B) and digital models (DI-SESS-82364).

4.7.7.2. Providing digital models to a DoD standardized product data management system

for common government storage, maintenance, access, and control. If a prime contractor

central repository is used instead of a DAF maintained and controlled facility, appropriate

data access and retrieval rights for government personnel must be ensured through

specified inclusion in the contract consistent with DAFPAM63-128. The PM manages

46 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

digital product design data using a DoD standardized product data management system that

must be defined and justified within the SEP and approved by the MDA. The PM should

coordinate Product Data Management strategies with the AFLCMC Product Lifecycle

Management Capability Support Office (AF PLM CSO AF[email protected]) prior

to selection of a Product Lifecycle Management system.

4.7.7.3. Maintaining updated digital product design data in the standardized system

throughout operation and sustainment.

4.7.7.4. Documenting in the IP strategy the rationale for deviations (if any) from the above

IP requirements.

4.7.7.5. If reporting to the USSF, ensuring that all IP developed under a contract/OTA

awarded by the USSF is delivered to and retained by the USSF. All USSF databases and

data systems at all classification levels will have entries in the USSF Data Catalog and Data

System Catalog. Data deposited into those databases include all data (at rest or in motion,

raw and processed/fused). Entries will be maintained with a minimum six-month update

interval. The USSF PM will provide data dictionaries for each USSF database to

USSF/CTIO or designee, who in turn oversees its integration into the USSF Data

Dictionary. (The Data Dictionary provides data clarity for analysts, developers, and

operators and serves as a tool for data model standardization, which is a prerequisite for

development of any advanced battle management system for joint forces use.) The USSF

PM will provide USSF/CTIO (Chief Technology and Innovation Officer) or their designee,

design documentation for all new or modernized USSF data systems in the form of tabular

data flows and data dictionaries prior to submission for operational acceptance. The USSF

PM will also record all new databases in the USSF Data Catalog.

4.8. Test Planning. The PM ensures the Chief Developmental Tester or Test Manager establishes

an Integrated Test Team after program initiation, develops and documents test planning and the

level of test support required for the life cycle of the system, and conducts readiness reviews in

accordance with DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103 and DAFMAN 63-119, Mission-Oriented Test

Readiness Certification. The PM should be aware of T&E planning requirements and make

provisions within contracts, reference OSD’s guide on Incorporating Test and Evaluation into

Department of Defense Acquisition Contracts for more information.

4.8.1. Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and Test Strategy. The PM ensures the Chief

Developmental Tester or Test Manager, and the Integrated Test Team prepares a TEMP prior

to a milestone decision or the test strategy prior to the decision point to enter the applicable

acquisition pathway in accordance with DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103. The Integrated Test

Team forwards the final draft TEMP test strategy to the PM and the Chief Engineer for review

and for approval by the PM and assists with subsequent coordination to all required

organizations below the HAF level.

4.8.1.1. For ACAT I programs and those programs on the T&E oversight list, the PEO

will sign the TEMP or test strategy after the PM signs and send back to the PM for DAF

staffing. The PM will send the TEMP or test strategy to the SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ Program

Element Monitor (PEM) who will coordinate through the required DAF Staff offices.

4.8.1.2. For USSF programs, the TEMP or test strategy will be coordinated through

USSF/TE and signed by USSF/TE and AF/TE prior to coordination with SAE. After SAE

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 47

signature, the PEM will submit the TEMP or test strategy to the Deputy Director for

Developmental Test, Evaluation, and Assessments (DD(DTE&A)) and DOT&E for

approval.

4.8.1.3. The MDA is the TEMP approval authority for delegated ACAT II, ACAT III and

equivalent programs not on OSD T&E oversight.

4.8.2. Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E). SAE recommends candidate systems to

DOT&E for compliance with LFT&E legislation. PMs with a “covered system,” as defined in

10 USC Section 4172, Major Systems and Munitions Programs: Survivability Testing and

Lethality Testing Required Before Full-Scale Production, will contact Office of the Secretary

of Defense, Director Operational Test and Evaluation (OSD/DOT&E) LFT&E office to

determine live fire applicability. (T-0) SAE approves agreed-upon LFT&E programs and

allocates DAF resources required to accomplish LFT&E plans. Additionally, the SAE

forwards required LFT&E documentation and waivers (if appropriate) to OSD/DOT&E, which

then go to USD(A&S) for approval.

4.8.3. Test and Evaluation Considerations. The PM ensures that DT&E and Operational Test

and Evaluation (OT&E) considerations are addressed throughout the life cycle. PMs, with the

Chief Developmental Tester/Test Manager, establish a structured strategy for T&E and a

process to provide early feedback to the requirements and acquisition processes. The PM

implements the dedicated operational test review process as described in DAFMAN 63-119

and briefs the MDA who certifies system readiness for Initial OT&E. DoDI 5000.89_DAFI

99-103 for more information.

4.9. Modeling and Simulation. To satisfy the DAF requirements to support the DoD mission

engineering efforts to increase lethality through interoperability and the requirements in AFI 16-

1005, Modeling & Simulation Management, Chapter 7, Modeling & Simulation Standards and

Architecture, Program Offices are designated as the single authoritative source of truth for their

systems’ models for use in all appropriate modeling environments.

4.9.1. The PM ensures models, simulations, and associated data supporting acquisition

processes, products, and decisions meet the appropriate verification and validation

requirements and are accredited for their intended use (reference AFI 16-1001, Verification,

Validation and Accreditation (VV&A)). The infrastructure necessary to support system design

and integration includes government-owned centers for live, virtual, and constructive

simulation, as well as contractor system integration facilities. To the maximum extent

possible, the PM leverages existing live, virtual, and constructive assets.

4.9.2. The PM works with lead or using command, operational requirements advocate(s),

developmental and operational testers, the IC, the science and technology community and other

relevant organizations to develop and implement a modeling and simulation strategy leading

to products that can be transitioned and used throughout the acquisition life cycle.

4.9.2.1. The PM documents the modeling and simulation strategy in the appropriate

program documentation dependent upon the usage of modeling and simulation. The PM

provides, or makes available, the program’s systems models to support Modeling &

Simulation capabilities. The system model(s) should support Modeling & Simulation

requirements including, but not limited to, live, synthetic, and blended operational training

and T&E requirements supporting the Operational Training and Test Infrastructure.

48 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.9.2.2. The modeling and simulation strategy describes how the use of modeling and

simulation benefits the program and addresses how the program meets DoD and DAF

modeling and simulation mandates such as reusability, commonality, interoperability,

adoption of standards, and promoting visibility of capabilities, resources, and data.

4.9.2.3. The modeling and simulation strategy should describe how the PM is to obtain

sufficient data to adequately characterize the technical and operational capabilities of the

system. The strategy should allow for model requirements decomposition, test design and

scenarios negotiation, prioritization, criticality, and awareness of availability or required

delivery date, especially for necessary threat models and data.

4.9.2.4. Programs should obtain data and models from authoritative sources when

available and feasible. If intelligence authoritative sources are neither available nor

feasible, the program must address how it will ensure Intelligence Community analytic

standards are followed in accordance with Intelligence Community Directive 203

“Analytic Standards” for generation of the threat models and threat data it will use.

4.9.3. PMs should consult their local organic modeling and simulation agencies (e.g.,

Simulation and Analysis Facility within AFMC, Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)

Enterprise Modeling & Simulation) and non-organic organizations (National Air and Space

Intelligence Center for threat modeling and simulation, the AF Agency for Modeling and

Simulation, and the DAF Chief Modeling and Simulation Office) that can be utilized by the

program instead of developing unique modeling and simulation tools.

4.10. Government Cost Estimates. The PM is responsible for updating life cycle cost estimates

in accordance with AFPD 65-5; AFMAN 65-502, Inflation; AFI 65-508; and AFMAN 65-506,

Economic Analysis. The PM compares cost estimates to the program budget to assess program

executability. The PM ensures current technical and programmatic data is provided to Cost

Estimators in support of life cycle cost estimates. See DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 2A, Budget

Formulation and Presentation for more details. Note: PM responses to external inquiries should

use official cost estimates; consult AFI 65-508.

4.10.1. The PM provides cost estimates at the identified confidence level to the MDA during

reviews. To the greatest extent possible, the PM identifies the Total Ownership Cost and the

major drivers to this cost. Realistic program planning assumptions should be developed to

ensure adequate analysis of life cycle cost, schedule, and performance risks, to be documented

in the program office estimate.

4.10.2. For cost estimates that provide a range of potential costs, the PM should assess that

range for the associated risks to the program. Establish each cost estimate and associated risk

assessment using approved DAF cost estimating procedures and consider technical, schedule,

and programmatic risk assessments to produce a cost estimate distribution or, where a

distribution cannot be computed, a range of potential program costs. The MDA for an ACAT

I or II program uses the cost estimate distribution and cost estimate confidence to establish a

sufficient program funding level. The selection of the appropriate program cost estimate

confidence level is at the discretion of the MDA, however, in accordance with AFI 65-508, the

PM establishes a confidence level and documents it in the ADM and other deliverables as

necessary.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 49

4.11. Program Funding. Authority is delegated to SAF/SQX to direct the implementation of

space systems and programs in the RDT&E; Space; and Other Procurement appropriations.

(Reference DAFMAN 65-601, Vol. 1, Budget Guidance and Technical Procedures).

4.11.1. PEO Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) submit requests for budget authorization

adjustments to SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX when authorizations are inconsistent with program

requirements, or when necessary to meet critical requirements. SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX

authorizes, via coordination of program adjustments in Automated Funds Management

System, execution-year adjustments to program funding, to include release/withdrawal of

funds.

4.11.2. SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX coordinates on all investment New Start, Below Threshold

Reprogramming, and Above Threshold Reprogramming actions, prior to submittal to

SAF/FMB.

4.11.3. Budgeting and funding for all acquisition programs will account for all IP deliverables

and associated IP licenses needed for the program’s life cycle. Those resources will be

sufficient to specify, identify, develop, and sustain the modular open system approach,

associated technical baseline documentation, systems integration, and any additional program

activities necessary to sustain innovation and interoperability.

4.12. New Start Notification. A New Start notification is required for any program, subprogram,

modification, project, or subproject not previously justified to and funded by Congress in an

appropriation through the normal budget process. Program office personnel should review past

funding to support New Start determination and contact SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX for New Start

determination questions. SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX, in coordination with FMB, will review the

program’s Congressional Justification Documents and past funding and will make an official

determination. When a determination has been made that the efforts undertaken meet the New

Start criteria, Congress is notified via either a Letter of Notification or DD Form 1415-1,

Reprogramming Action (Prior Approval Action). The methods of notification to be used are

delineated in DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 3, Budget Execution – Availability and Use of Budgetary

Resources, Chapter 6. Additional guidance on New Start business rules can be provided by

SAF/FMBI.

4.12.1. New Start Validation Responsibilities. The PM and the respective program office

CFO are required to document and validate that efforts underway have obtained approval for

New Start or have been adequately assessed and determined not to meet the New Start criteria

before any funds are obligated for programs not categorized as “commodity” programs. RFPs,

proposal evaluations, and contract negotiations are part of normal program office activities and

therefore, do not represent New Start activities. The New Start Validation Form contains the

criteria is provided as an Attachment o DAFPAM 63-128.

4.12.1.1. Refer to DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 3, Ch. 6 for additional guidance on the key points

delineated in the Validation Form in DAFPAM 63-128.

4.12.1.2. If no item in the Validation Form is marked “YES,” the PM works with the

respective Program Element Monitor or Capability Director at the HAF to coordinate the

initiation of the appropriate New Start Notification package (i.e., Letter of Notification/DD

Form 1415-1 packages). Once the Validation Form is completed, file it as part of the

program’s contract file.

50 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.12.2. Validation Form Exemptions. Funding actions for the following are excluded from

the requirement to complete the validation form prior to obligating funds. The exemption from

completing the validation form does not absolve activities from complying with all regulations

pertaining to New Start Notifications in the event a New Start is planned for initiation.

4.12.2.1. Budget Activities. All Basic Research (code 6.1 activities), Applied Research

(code 6.2 activities), and Advanced Technology Development (code 6.3 activities), unless

initiating a new research project (budget program activity code) that is not a transfer of an

existing effort nor listed in the applicable descriptive summary (RDT&E programs budget

item justification exhibit, “Exhibit R-2”). These exemptions do not include program

elements beginning with a 63 designation but do include those falling under another Budget

Activity Development and Prototypes budget program activity code.

4.12.2.2. All Small Business Innovation Research Phase I and II efforts. See AFI 61-102

for more information.

4.12.2.3. Incremental funding actions for ongoing efforts if no change in required work.

4.12.2.4. Contract changes pursuant to clauses that do not change the work requirement of

the contract (i.e., award fees and some price adjustments).

4.12.2.5. Program management and administrative efforts directed at business

management and program office operations.

4.12.2.6. O&M funded efforts.

4.12.3. Reference DAFMAN 65-605, V1 for details on the New Start Notification process,

procedures, and reporting requirements. In addition, individuals can contact SAF/AQXE or

SAF/SQXE, as applicable, and SAF/FMBI for additional guidance or help regarding New

Starts specific issues.

4.13. Use of Specifications and Standards. Consistent with the DoDI 4120.24, Defense

Standardization Program (DSP), and the AF Standardization Program (refer to AFI 60-101,

Materiel Standardization), balance decisions to standardize against specific mission requirements,

technology growth, and cost effectiveness. Use specifications and standards in solicitations and

contracts to define essential standard practices (e.g., system safety and parts management) and

technical requirements (e.g., materiel interoperability and support requirements) and to manage

risk. In support of this, the office of the AF Standardization Executive has developed portfolio-

specific standardization document lists (PEO Picklists) that can be used (see

https://www.milsuite.mil/wiki/Portal:Air_Force_Engineering_Resource_Center/Standardiz

ation_Program). Specific DoD policy on the use of specifications and standards and other

methods to achieve objectives required by 10 USC Section 2451, Defense Supply Management, to

10 USC Section 2457, Standardization of equipment with North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Members; DoDI 2010.06, Materiel Interoperability and Standardization with Allies and Coalition

Partners and DoDD 5000.01 are contained in DoDM 4120.24, DoD Standardization Program

(DSP) Procedures. Additional guidance on the use of specifications and standards in architecting

is contained in AFI 17-140, Architecting.

4.14. Intelligence Supportability Analysis. Initial or macro intelligence supportability risk is

first determined by an Intelligence sensitivity determination. Intelligence sensitivity of a program

is determined by the program’s Acquisition Intelligence Analyst, in conjunction with the PM and

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 51

other stakeholders. Informed by the relative degree of Intelligence-Sensitivity, the PM develops,

and documents requirements and level of intelligence support required for the life cycle of the

intelligence-sensitive program. The PM uses the results of Intelligence Supportability Analysis to

develop and document requirements for; ISR and data dependencies, the level of intelligence

support necessary across the program life cycle, and the integration of intelligence information

into the program decision making and system engineering. Intelligence supportability analysis

may also illuminate where there are needs for involvement of any applicable FMS stakeholders.

Reference JCIDS Manual for more information on intelligence supportability. Note: Per

applicability paragraph of this publication, SAPs are coordinated with SAF/AQL or SAF/SQX.

4.14.1. The PM may decide to tailor-in regulatory artifacts, Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan,

validated on-line threat, and Technology Targeting Risk Assessment pending the Acquisition

Intelligence Analyst recommendation for the best way to address program data dependencies,

relevant authoritative threat and technology targeting assessments. This decision for how

regulatory artifacts will be addressed should be documented within the Acquisition Strategy.

(T-0)

4.14.2. Intelligence threat model and any new types of technical intelligence data requirements

are to be documented and submitted for intelligence community action in accordance with

CJCSI 3318.01, Acquisition-Intelligence-Requirements Annual Priorities and Risk

Management Framework and using the Acquisition Intelligence Requirements and Risk

Management Framework (PRMF) process. (T-0)

4.14.2.1. The National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) produces a National

System for Geospatial Intelligence Foundation GEOINT Intelligence Mission Data Plan

(NSG FG IMDP) that can inform a program of NGA plans for GEOINT data. The NSG

FG IMDP can be found at

https://intellipedia.intelink.gov/wiki/Foundation_GEOINT_IMD_Plan

4.14.2.2. Acquisition intelligence analyst in coordination with the PM will notify

AF/A2/6, USSF/S2, and DAF Chief Modeling Simulation Office for threat model and

intelligence data production requirements when submitted through Community On-Line

Intelligence System for End-Users and Managers in addition to or outside of the Priorities

and Risk Management Framework. (T-2)

4.14.3. Critical Intelligence Parameter Processes. Critical Intelligence Parameters (CIPs) are

factors defining the threshold performance of a foreign system or capability that could

compromise the program or mission effectiveness of the U.S. system. As such, CIPs define

areas of highest priority for ongoing intelligence reporting that ensures program achievement

of Key Performance Parameters and/or Key System Attributes. Formal requirements for

intelligence production of CIP forecasts should be established by the PM and the program

requirements sponsor in collaboration with the Acquisition Intelligence Analysts. CIPs

typically originate during the requirements generation phase and may evolve based upon

program maturation across the acquisition life cycle.

4.14.3.1. CIP Breach. If a CIP is breached at any point in the program’s life cycle, all

materiel and non-materiel (i.e., Doctrine, Organization, Training, Leadership and

Education, Personnel, Facilities, or Policy) impacts are reviewed to determine appropriate

responses and risk mitigation efforts. The program will likely require additional time and

funds to adjust (i.e., “re-baseline”), and spiral or increment thresholds, objectives, Key

52 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Performance Parameters (KPPs), Key System Attributes (KSAs), etc., may require

adjustment or modification.

4.14.3.2. The PM notifies the PEO, MDA, and implementing command’s intelligence

focal point if a CIP threshold is reported as breached by the appropriate supporting Service

Intelligence Center (e.g., National Air and Space Intelligence Center). A Configuration

Steering Board, as detailed in Chapter 3, determines if any follow-on action is required.

For additional information reference DIAI 5000.002, Intelligence Threat Support for

Major Defense Acquisition Programs and CJCSI 5123.01I.

4.14.3.3. The PM should ensure the specific intelligence mission data products’ version,

format, and method of being ingested is documented in the appropriate Systems

Engineering and Logistics baselines to facilitate traceability in the event the intelligence

mission data product is modified or replaced.

4.14.4. The PM, working with the Acquisition Intelligence Analyst, defines the program’s

threat intelligence needs in accordance with the appropriate acquisition pathway and that

pathway's regulatory guidance, and will document a plan to meet intelligence needs in the

Acquisition Strategy, unless waived by the MDA. With assistance of the Acquisition

Intelligence Analyst, the PM ensures programs are fully threat-informed with authoritative

intelligence (in accordance with ICD 501, Discovery, and Dissemination or Retrieval of

Information Within the Intelligence Community).

4.14.5. If program is intelligence mission data-dependent, collaborate with the intelligence

focal point and operational MAJCOM/FLDCOM to identify intelligence mission data

production requirements to be submitted in the DAF annual intelligence mission data

requirements process. Notify AF/A2/6 and SF/S2 for intelligence mission data production

requirements ad-hoc submission in addition to submission through Community On-Line

Intelligence System for End-Users and Managers.

4.14.6. Intelligence Certification. CJCSI 5123.01I and the JCIDS Manual directs J283 to

conduct formal Intelligence Certification for capability requirement documents designated as

JROC or Joint Capabilities Board Interest. Reference JCIDS Manual and DAFMAN 14-405

for details. PMs should be aware of risk related to the threat summary and to each of the nine

intelligence support categories. For programs not designated as JROC or Joint Capabilities

Board Interest, AF/A2/6 or USSF/S2 exercises DoD Component level intelligence certification

authority through the USAF Requirements Oversight Council process.

4.15. Arms Control Compliance. The PM ensures all activities within the acquisition life cycle

are compliant with all U.S. Government arms control obligations in accordance with AFI 16-601,

Implementation of, and Compliance With, International Arms Control and Nonproliferation

Agreements and AFI 16-608, Implementation of, and Compliance with, Treaties Involving

Weapons of Mass Destruction. This assessment occurs prior to all milestone reviews or when

concerns arise, whichever is earlier.

4.15.1. If necessary, the PM submits relevant Arms Control Compliance documents for their

programs and activities, prior to program review milestones and when required throughout the

program’s life cycle, to the Planning, Policy, and Strategy Division (AF/A10P), or an

AF/A10P-designated organization.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 53

4.15.2. The PM ensures the program is reviewed for arms control compliance, to include New

START Treaty compliance, and obtains confirmation of review via normal staffing from

AF/A10 for program review milestones.

4.15.3. A PM who oversees acquisition programs involving strategic weapons (e.g., bombs,

warheads), their delivery vehicles (e.g., ballistic missiles, bombers, and cruise missiles,

including their associated basing, testing, and launch and control facilities), or chemical and

biological weapon defense-related materials and equipment should become aware of the

implications and limitations that arms control treaties may have on or impact their program(s).

4.16. Procurement Fraud. The PM immediately notifies the AF Office of Special

Investigations, Deputy General Counsel for Contractor Responsibility (SAF/GCR) and local legal

office, Contracting Officer (if appropriate), and AF/JACQ, the Acquisition, Fiscal Law and

Litigation Division of any actual or suspected procurement fraud. Reference AFI 51-1101,

Acquisition Integrity Program for more information.

4.17. Missile Defense Agency Related Acquisition. Life cycle management support is provided

to the Director, Missile Defense Agency, as needed, to carry out the responsibilities and functions

assigned to the Missile Defense Agency in accordance with DoDD 5134.09, Missile Defense

Agency. Where the DAF and the Missile Defense Agency have agreed through a weapon-specific

memorandum of understanding that the DAF is responsible for the life cycle management of an

element of the ballistic missile defense system in accordance with the Deputy Secretary of Defense

guidance on Ballistic Missile Defense System funding responsibility, the DAF then follows the

DoD 5000-series publications and this instruction.

4.18. Nuclear Weapon Related Policy. DAF nuclear weapon related acquisitions are developed

in accordance with DoDD 5000.01, DoDI 5000.02, and DoDI 5000.85. DAF nuclear certification

on nuclear weapon systems is considered as early as possible in the acquisition process to ensure

compliance with the four DoD nuclear surety standards per DoDD 3150.02, DoD Nuclear

Weapons Surety Program.

4.18.1. Nuclear Certification. The PM ensures nuclear weapon systems obtain nuclear

certification according to AFI 63-125, Nuclear Certification Program. For new systems, the

PM engages the nuclear certification process during the requirements analysis process to

ensure nuclear surety requirements are factored into the design as early as possible. Nuclear

certification requirements and key activities (including design considerations, testing,

verification, and reviews) should be considered in the program baseline, schedule, and risk

assessments. The certification review activities and supporting documentation should be

aligned to the program technical reviews (as identified in Chapter 5) to the greatest extent

possible, to reduce burden and avoid duplication of effort.

4.18.2. Joint AF-National Nuclear Security Administration developed nuclear weapons also

need to comply with DoDD 3150.01, Joint DoD-Department of Energy/National Nuclear

Security Administration (DoD-DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Weapon Life Cycle Activities; DoDI

3150.09, The Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Survivability Policy;

DoDM 5030.55_AFMAN 63-103, DoD Procedures For Joint DoD-Department Of

Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Weapon Life-Cycle

Activities. (T-0)

54 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

4.18.3. Additional DAF nuclear weapon related policy may be found in AFI 16-601; AFI 20-

110, Nuclear Weapons-Related Materiel Management; AFMAN 21-204, Nuclear Weapons

Maintenance; AFI 63-125; DAFI 91-101, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program; DoDI

5000.89_DAFI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation; MIL-STD-1822, Nuclear

Compatibility Certification of Nuclear Weapon Systems, Subsystems, and Support Equipment;

and DAFMAN 91-110, Nuclear Safety Review and Launch Approval for Space or Missile Use

of Radioactive Material and Nuclear Systems.

4.18.4. Nuclear Weapon Related Materiel. The PM ensures parts are evaluated against nuclear

weapon Related Materiel criteria in AFI 20-110. If assets are deemed Nuclear Weapon Related

Materiel, the PM implements applicable actions in compliance with AFI 20-110.

4.19. Management of DAF Training Systems. Refer to AFI 16-1007, Management of Air Force

Operational Training Systems, for specific requirements and responsibilities associated with the

life cycle of operational training systems, including aircrew, missile. mission systems, cyberspace,

and space system training systems, and training services attendant to DAF systems. Lead

commands may request PM participation in Training Planning Teams activities including

accomplishing the Training System Requirements Analysis and the development of system

training plans. Training systems that have been designated as stand-alone ACAT programs are

governed in accordance with this instruction.

4.19.1. The PM coordinates the program plans and activities with the Training System Product

Group, lead commands, and HQ Air Education and Training Command (AETC) or HQ

STARCOM to meet training system life cycle cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

4.19.2. The PM includes system training concepts and training system requirements in all

Acquisition Strategy prepared for, and subsequent to, Milestone B or equivalent decision point.

The PM includes training system PMs, lead and using commands, and HQ AETC during the

development of system acquisition strategies, program plans, and pertinent contract documents

such as acquisition System Requirements Documents.

4.19.3. The PM ensures training systems remain current with prime mission systems

throughout the life cycle of a system in accordance with approved program documentation and

funding. The PM ensures that all post-production system modification and upgrade programs

conducted for prime mission systems also include modifications to the affected training

systems.

4.19.4. Lead command and the PM determines the training system fielding requirements

necessary to support the fielding of prime systems and equipment, to include any FMS

considerations. The PM coordinates training system product acceptance, movement, and

delivery matters with the lead commands that will receive the training system(s).

4.19.5. The PM assists lead commands with management and reporting of training system

concurrency matters.

4.19.6. The PM manages, reports, and executes the accountability and disposal of training

devices in accordance with FAR and supplements; AFI 21-103 and AFI 23-101, as applicable.

4.20. End Use Certificate. The DAF purchases foreign products to best meet U.S. requirements,

consistent with U.S. laws, regulations, and acquisition policy. Acquisitions of foreign products

that meet DoD requirements also promote interoperability, standardization, and an expanded

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 55

procurement base. Execute End Use Certificates when the purchase of such products is in the best

interest of the United States and an End Use Certificate is required by the foreign government for

the purchase of foreign products. (T-0) See DoDI 2040.03, End Use Certificates, for more details.

4.20.1. U.S. worldwide security responsibilities are extensive; recognition of these special

circumstances require flexibility in international agreements in the authorized uses or transfer

of purchased or co-developed articles and data. In various circumstances, international

agreements have recognized U.S. “Use for Defense Purposes” of an item or data. DAF

personnel should seek to maintain “Use for Defense Purposes” flexibility in End Use

Certificates that foreign governments require DoD to sign.

4.20.2. End Use Certificates are divided into three categories:

4.20.2.1. Category I. Applies to acquisition items classified for security purposes by a

foreign government and covered by the nonproliferation agreements to which the United

States is a party (such as missile technology). This permits the item to be used by or for

the U.S. Government in any part of the world and transfer by means of grant aid,

International Military Education and Training programs, FMS, and other security

assistance and armaments cooperation authorities.

4.20.2.2. Category II. Applies to all other items not defined as either Category I or III.

4.20.2.3. Category III. Limits the right to use an item by or for the U.S. Government in

any part of the world; or to provide the item to allies engaged together with the United

States in armed conflict with a common enemy.

4.20.3. End Use Certificates are a two-part process consisting of approval of and signature of

the End Use Certificates. End Use Certificates are approved prior to contract award. Include

requests to delegate signature authority as part of the approval package. Approval and

signature authorities for End Use Certificates are as follows:

4.20.3.1. Category I and II. The SECAF, or a delegated civilian officer, appointed by the

President with the advice and consent of the Senate, is the approval authority for Category

I and II End Use Certificates. (T-0) This approval authority may not be further re-

delegated. Following approval of Category I and II, signature authority can be delegated

to PEO.

4.20.3.2. Category III. The SECAF or the SECAF representative must request authority

from the USD(A&S) to purchase an item with a Category III End Use Certificates

following approval, signature authority can be delegated to PEO. (T-0)

4.20.4. The PM maintains records of all End Use Certificates and provide copies to

USD(A&S).

4.20.4.1. The PM should ensure compliance for the life of the purchased item, with the

transfer of use restrictions agreed to in signing an End Use Certificates.

4.20.4.2. The PM notifies MAJCOM/FLDCOM headquarters of the End Use Certificates

approval and explains any restrictions on the use, transfer, or disposal of the item’s

hardware, technology, and associated technical data. (T-1)

4.21. Auditability. Auditability is the ability to assert that its financial statements, a financial

statement line item, or a process/sub-process has sufficient control activities and adequate

56 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

documentation to begin an examination or a financial statement audit by an independent auditor.

Process standardization, simplification, and clarity support are key to sustainable auditability.

4.21.1. The PM is responsible for ensuring applicable supporting documentation required for

audit is readily accessible to management for oversight and to auditors to support auditability

and that appropriate and knowledgeable program office personnel support financial audit

activities. (T-2)

4.21.2. The PM is responsible to report deficiencies that may impact DAF financial statements

and support corrective actions to remediate the deficiency. Reference AFI 65-301, Internal

Audit Services.

4.21.3. PMs for financial management systems are responsible for ensuring systems are

acquired, implemented, and maintained following the processes prescribed in Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130, as well as associated financial management

system and defense business system guidance. (T-0) Reference DoD 7000.14-R and DoDI

5000.75_DAFI63-144 for more information.

4.22. General Equipment Valuation. General Equipment Valuation is a DoD initiative to

capitalize, and depreciate assets, including modifications, to meet federal accounting standards as

defined in DoDI 5000.64, Accountability and Management of DoD-Owned Equipment and Other

Accountable Property, DoDI 4140.73, Asset Physical Accountability Policy, and DoD 7000.14-R.

4.22.1. The PM accounts for all General Equipment assets, including assets subject to

capitalization and depreciation, regardless of pathway. (T-0)

4.22.2. General Equipment is described in DoD 7000.14-R and includes military equipment,

non-military equipment, Government Furnished Equipment, IT assets, and Internal Use

Software. (T-0) The PM is responsible for the accountability and reporting of Developed

Internal Use Software in accordance with DoD 7000.14-R (T-0) and DAF guidance. For

additional information regarding the accounting for and financial reporting of developed

software costs, refer to AFMAN 17-1203, Information Technology (IT) Asset Management

(ITAM).

4.22.3. The PM includes a General Equipment program description as part of the Acquisition

Strategy (may be waived by the MDA). At Milestone C (or any other decision point that leads

to production or procurement of end items to be used for operations) for any program, project,

product, or system that has deliverable end items that meet the capitalization threshold, ensure

the program’s General Equipment description identifies the deliverables at a detail level

consistent with level two of the program work breakdown structure (detailed guidance on the

work breakdown structures for defense materiel items is located in MIL-STD-881F).

4.22.3.1. The assets meeting the capitalization thresholds.

4.22.3.2. The government furnished property (GFP) or material included in the assets.

4.22.3.3. Other deliverables that accompany the assets (e.g., manuals or tech data).

4.22.3.4. Other types of deliverables purchased with program funding (e.g., initial spares

or support equipment), that cannot be directly attributed to a specific asset.

4.22.4. The PM ensures proper accounting and contractual allocation of program expenditures

between capitalized assets and expenses. This is completed for every program, project,

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 57

product, or system that has deliverable assets. Detailed guidance on accounting policy and

procedures may be found in DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 4, Accounting Policy.

4.22.5. The PM ensures the CFO reporting data elements (the full cost value and useful life)

for military equipment assets (i.e., Aircraft, MRAP, Satellites, and ICBMs) and modifications

to military equipment over $1 million are recorded upon initial delivery in the accountable

property system of record, either Reliability and Maintainability Information System (REMIS)

or Reliability, Availability, Maintainability for Pods (RAMPOD). The PM ensures REMIS

and RAMPOD are updated with CFO reporting data elements when inventory items are added,

removed, or adjusted as a result of modifications as prescribed in AFI 21-103. The PM ensures

the performance of monthly data reconciliations and automated attestation annually in REMIS

and RAMPOD for weapon system assets and qualified modifications. REMIS and RAMPOD

are the appropriate CFO compliant systems to be used in military valuation and reporting

through the Defense Finance and Accounting System. Refer to AFI 21-103 for additional

guidance.

4.22.6. The PM provides the PCO with the military evaluation requirements to assist in the

creation of proper contract structure to reflect the distinction necessary to facilitate appropriate

financial accounting.

4.22.7. The PM ensures all government property is accounted for in the correct Accountable

Property Systems of Record in accordance with DoDI 5000.64_DAFI 23-111, Accountability

and Management of DoD Equipment and Other Accountable Property, to support the program,

to include COMSEC assets and property in the possession of the contractor. COMSEC assets

found that are not in the correct Accountable Property System of Record are reported in

accordance with AFMAN 17-1302-O, Communications Security (COMSEC) Operations,

Chapter 9, and Committee on National Security Systems Instructions (CNSSI) No. 4003,

Reporting and Evaluating Communications Security (COMSEC) Incidents.

4.22.8. Accountability for assets in which title has passed but delivery to the DoD has not yet

occurred is maintained through a Construction in Process account. See DoD 7000.14-R for

procedures). This account may reside in either the DoD Component accounting system or the

Component Accountable Property System of Record.

4.22.9. Upon delivery, accountable property records are established as appropriate in the

Accountable Property System of Record. Coordinate accountability actions with the

appropriate Accountable Property Officer within each functional community responsible for

the sustainment and provisioning of government property; management and accountability of

property records; and management of Accountable Property Systems (e.g., Civil Engineers

Maintenance, Medical, Security Forces, and Logistics Readiness).

4.23. Serialized Item Management. The purpose of Serialized Item Management is to improve

the DAF’s capability to manage materiel through the generation, collection, and analysis of data

on individual assets to enhance asset visibility and financial accountability and to improve system

life cycle management. Serialized Item Management is enabled through IUID, automatic

identification technology, and automated information systems. IUID is the assignment and

marking of individual assets with a standardized, machine-readable, two-dimensional marking

containing a globally unique and unambiguous item identifier. Automatic identification

technology is the technology used to scan the marking at points within the supply chain to identify

discrete transactions of an asset as well as transmit the data collected from these transactions to

58 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

automated information systems. It stores and processes the data so it can be used to make informed

decisions concerning the management of the asset or the system. Reference DoDI 8320.03, Unique

Identification (UID) Standards for Supporting the DoD Information Enterprise; DoDI 8320.04

and DoDI 4151.19 for additional guidance.

4.23.1. The PM documents the Serialized Item Management strategy in the Acquisition

Strategy and Information Support Plan.

4.23.2. The PM identifies in the Information Support Plan any system operational needs for

data to conduct Serialized Item Management for Unique Item Identifiers to be used as the key

field to associate data on tangible personal property assets.

4.24. Item Unique Identification Planning. The PM, with support from the PSM and in

collaboration with the AFMC Automatic Identification Technology program office, plans for and

implements IUID. IUID requirements are integrated into planning for development of

engineering, manufacturing, maintenance technical data; configuration management; and

integrated product support as prescribed in DFARS 211.274-2, DoDI 5000.85, and DoDI 8320.04.

For more information and non-directive best practices refer to DAFPAM 63-128.

4.24.1. An IUID Implementation Plan is required for MCA pathway programs and may be

prepared for other pathways. (T-0)

4.24.2. The PM begins IUID implementation planning after the program has been formally

established. The PM includes the approved IUID Implementation Plan in the SEP.

4.24.3. The PM, with support from the PSM, documents the part number and serial-number

IUID discriminators to support trending analysis.

4.24.4. For sustainment activities of existing programs, new individual IUID Implementation

Plans are not required. However, Sustainment Work Center/Cost Center supervisors will still

incorporate planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of IUID requirements for

existing programs into day-to-day workload planning and scheduling based on planned

workflows, technical documentation, and specifications. (T-3) This includes registration in

the DoD IUID registry. (T-0)

4.24.5. Special Interest IUID requirements:

4.24.5.1. Nuclear Weapons-Related Materiel. All individual nuclear weapon related

materiel items are accounted for and managed by serial number. This includes the

assignment of a Unique Item Identifier. Consistent with engineering analysis, individual

nuclear weapon related materiel items in the DoD Supply System are marked with a

machine-readable Unique Item Identifier or assigned a virtual Unique Item Identifier.

4.24.5.2. AF Automated Computer Program Identification Number System (ACPINS).

When developing new computer software configuration items for DAF Weapons Systems

and Automatic Test Equipment, the Automated Computer Program Identification Number

System will be used in numbering each computer software configuration items and related

documentation and in ordering and tracking software (reference TO 00-5-16, Computer

Program Identification Number (CPIN) Management).

4.24.6. The PM ensures information on marked items is included in the DoD IUID.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 59

4.24.7. Program planning for Automated Information Technology infrastructure requirements

or Automated Information System enhancements, to include IUID should occur only if the

program is responsible for management or maintenance.

4.25. Government Furnished Property. The PM identifies, and is accountable for, all required

GFP addressed in the contract and other program documentation. The PM working with the

Integrated Product Team, will identify, justify, and document the requirement for GFP using the

GFP module as described in DoDI 4161.02, Accountability and Management of Government

Contract Property. (T-0) The PM, working with the PCO, ensures the FAR and DFARS GFP

clauses are included in all new contracts involving assets for which the government has Title

(owned by the DAF) and is in the possession of contractors. The overarching guidance for GFP

management is contained in FAR Part 45, DFARS and DFARS PGI Part 245 AFFARS Part 5345,

and DoDI 8320.04. The PM ensures the contract specifies the requirements for property

accountability in the Accountable Property System of Record as described in DoDI 5000.64 and

DAFMAN 23-119, Government Furnished Property.

4.25.1. The PM will ensure the list of GFP is provided to the contracting office, and listed as

an attachment to the official contract, in the GFP attachment format, in accordance with

DFARS Procedures, Guidance, and Information (PGI) 245.103-72, GFP attachments to

solicitations and awards. (T-0)

4.25.2. The PM, working with the program office, conducts a physical inventory of all GFP,

to include data in the contract, the correct Accountable Property System of Record, and the

IUID Registry semi-annually for materiel managed by the contractor and annually for

equipment used by the contractor. (T-0) The PM maintains property accountability in

accordance with the procedures of DoDI 5000.64; DoDI 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Materiel

Management Policy; and Defense Logistics Manual 4000.25, Vol. 2, Supply Standards and

Procedures. (T-0)

4.26. Industrial Base Constraints and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)

Integration. Program managers will conduct industrial base constraints and supply chain

assessments throughout the life cycle. The PM will integrate identified risks into program risk

management activities (see Chapter 4 and Chapter 6, Section 6.13). (T-1)

4.26.1. Industrial base constraints are the limitations in capability and capacity of the

commercial and organic sources to develop, produce, and sustain the weapon system during

its life cycle.

4.26.1.1. Industrial base capability is the technical and business ability to produce,

maintain, or repair the item. DoDI 5000.60 provides guidelines to assess the criticality of

the item and determine if industrial base intervention is necessary.

4.26.1.2. Industrial base capacity is the ability to provide the capability at the needed

quantities.

4.26.1.3. Document industrial base constraints in the Acquisition Strategy and Life Cycle

Sustainment Plan (LCSP). This should address mitigation to ensure that the system(s) can

be supported, upgraded, and updated during its life cycle. (T-1)

4.26.1.4. Review Industrial Capabilities Reports for industrial base or supply chain risks

associated with their program and, if identified, notify SAF/AQX's Industrial Liaison

60 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Office of the industrial base risk and the impact to the program(s). If other significant

industrial base constraints are present within the program, the PM will report these to the

implementing command SCRM focal point for further review.

4.26.1.5. Follow the procedures of DoDI 5000.60, when proposing the use of government

funds for the preservation of an industrial capability. (T-0)

4.26.2. Supply chain risk is anything that has potential to jeopardize the integrity of products,

services, people, and technologies or disrupt the flow of product, materiel, information, and

finances across the life cycle of a weapon or support system. See DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-

113 for more information on SCRM.

4.26.2.1. Supply Chain assessments will include threat assessments on critical components

per DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113, and assessments of sub-tiers in the prime contractor

supply chain. (T-0)

4.26.2.2. Supply Chain assessments will evaluate the following risk lenses: financial,

foreign influence, human capital, product quality, manufacturing and supply, compliance,

technology, cybersecurity, industrial infrastructure, transportation and distribution, and

environment. (T-1)

4.26.2.3. Conduct supply chain monitoring for identified supply chain vulnerabilities.

(T-1)

4.26.2.4. Document SCRM risks and mitigations in the Acquisition Strategy and the

Program Protection Plan. (T-1)

4.26.2.5. Include SCRM requirements in market research, RFPs, contract language, and

source selection evaluation criteria. (T-1)

4.26.2.6. Contact the command SCRM focal point for assistance. Support command

SCRM focal point for Enterprise risks that impact the program. (T-1)

4.26.3. SAF/AQR, on behalf of the SAE, will serve as the DAF TSN focal point. The focal

point is the overall DAF TSN lead, performs those duties that cannot be performed at the

MAJCOM/FLDCOM level, and resolves disputes between implementing commands on

matters concerning Enterprise-level TSN activities.

4.26.4. SAF/AQX, on behalf of the SAE, will accomplish the following, in coordination with

SAF/SQX for Space related equities:

4.26.4.1. Coordinate industrial capability analysis with key stakeholders and serve as a

focal point for industrial base capability and capacity requests from OSD Industrial Base

Policy.

4.26.4.2. Oversee the four government-owned/contractor-operated facilities (DAF Plants)

which provide production capability and capacity for production of weapon systems. Refer

to Chapter 12 for details.

4.26.4.3. Execute the Defense Production Act Title I, duties of the Defense Priorities and

Allocations System officer (DPASO) for the DAF.

4.26.4.4. Oversee the execution of Defense Production Act Title III Executive Agent

responsibilities.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 61

4.26.4.5. Execute the Defense Production Act Title VII duties as the DAF representative

to provide OSD analyses and risks regarding the cases and matters for the Committee on

Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Coordinate with SAF/SQX for Space

related equities.

4.26.4.6. Execute duties as the DAF representative to provide OSD’s Merger and

Acquisition Office analysis and competition risks regarding pending transactions under

Hart-Scott-Rodino Act review.

4.26.5. The Industrial Base Assessment (IBA) Program Manager (currently AFRL/RXM)

will:

4.26.5.1. Support SAF/AQX with IBA analysis of the Defense Industrial Base including,

but not limited to Mergers and Acquisition; CFIUS; and Congressional reporting

requirements.

4.26.5.2. Provide direct assistance to Program Offices and Centers, as requested, with IBA

and SME support to identify and mitigate operational and strategic weapon system risk.

(T-1)

4.26.5.3. As directed by the AFMC/CC, serve as the Executive Agent Program Office

(EAPO) for the Defense Production Act, Title III Office.

4.26.5.4. Support the Defense Priorities and Allocations System, Title I, duties of

SAF/AQX such as, carrying out analysis of special priority assistance requests, education

to field activities, and other requests related to DPAS.

4.26.5.5. Provide implementing command SCRM focal points with identified industrial

base risks, analyses, and coordinate recommended risk mitigation actions, as appropriate.

4.26.5.6. Liaises with the Office of Commercial and Economic Analysis (OCEA) on

strategic IBA of risks to DAF.

4.26.6. The AFMC and SSC command SCRM focal point will serve as the clearinghouse for

SCRM data and collaborate with the IBA Program Manager to both incorporate and inform

IBAs. The Command SCRM focal point will: (T-1)

4.26.6.1. Establish analytic SCRM capabilities to illuminate, collect, integrate, analyze,

synchronize, distribute, and monitor supply chain risk data and efforts. Capabilities will

include continuous supply chain monitoring for risks, threats, and vulnerabilities to

program supply chains. (T-1)

4.26.6.2. Assist Program Managers, as requested, by making available various supply

chain analytic capabilities that identify risk, assess, monitor, and mitigate risk in supply

chains. (T-1)

4.26.6.3. Provide Program Managers standard SCRM language for market research, RFPs,

contracts, and source selection evaluation criteria. Maintain standard risk lenses and

definitions for supply chain risk assessments. (T-1)

4.26.6.4. Coordinate Enterprise risks and mitigation efforts with key stakeholders across

the DAF and affected Program Offices. Consolidate findings and provide a trend analysis

of enterprise risk to SAF/AQD, SAF/AQR, SAF/AQX, SAF/SQX and SAF/SQA, as

62 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

applicable, to support higher-level mitigation strategies, periodic reporting, and other DoD

or DAF initiatives. (T-1)

4.26.6.5. Develop and provide command specific SCRM training. (T-1)

4.26.7. Identify critical components vulnerable to counterfeiting throughout the system life

cycle. The PM ensures contracts require prime contractors take the steps necessary to

implement management controls to guard against counterfeit materiel in the supply chain, to

include adequate provisions for sub-contracts. Reference DoDI 4140.01, DoDI 4140.67, DoD

Counterfeit Prevention Policy, AFI 23-101, and DFARS 246.870, Contractors’ Counterfeit

Electronic Part Detection and Avoidance for further guidance on counterfeit materiel

management, to include suspect counterfeit items, and associated Government Industry Data

Exchange Program (GIDEP) reporting.

4.27. Other Acquisition Planning Factors. The PM considers the requirements in Table 4.1 as

part of acquisition planning. These planning factors do not apply to all programs and are applied

when required for the program.

Table 4.1. Other Acquisition Planning Factors.

Name

Requirement Description

References

Replaced

System Support

Plan

Summarizes the plan for sustaining the replaced

(existing) system during fielding and transition to

the new system.

10 USC Section 4321;

DoDI 5000.91

DoD Joint

Services Weapon

and Laser System

Safety Review

Process

Liaison with the AF Safety Center

(AFSEC/SEW) to ensure appropriate DAF

representation to conduct weapon and laser

system safety reviews for joint systems being

operationally deployed through the Joint Weapon

Safety Review Process and Joint Laser Approval

process.

DoDI 5000.69

Commercial

Product/Service

Purchase

Commercial purchase determinations and guidance

10 USC Section 3452-

3458; FAR 2.101, FAR

Part 12; FAR Part 10;

DFARS Part 212;

AFFARS; Part 5312

Buy American Act

Applies to supplies and construction materials

above the micro–purchases thresholds and

restricts the purchase of supplies that are not

domestic end products for use within the United

States.

41 USC Section 8301-

8305; FAR Subpart

25.1 and 25.2, and 25.6;

DFARS Part 225;

AFFARS Part 5325

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 63

Name

Requirement Description

References

Berry Amendment

& 10 USC

Section 4863

This amendment establishes domestic source

preferences for commodities, such as textiles,

specialty metals, and machine or hand tools, in

DoD acquisitions above the simplified

acquisition threshold. 10 USC Section 4863

establishes domestic source preferences for

specialty metals.

10 USC Section 4862

and Section 4863.

DFARS Part 225:

AFFARS Part 5325

Lead Systems

Integrator (LSI)

Limitations

An entity performing LSI functions may not have

direct financial interest in the development or

construction of an individual system, or element

of a system, or is performing inherently

governmental functions (IGF).

10 USC Section 4292;

DFARS 209.570

IGF

Determinations

Determination from the Installation Manpower

Office identifying if there are military (Active or

Reserve Component) or civilian employees of the

DAF available to perform the functions and if the

required services are inherently governmental,

acquisition functions closely associated with IGFs,

or otherwise inappropriate for performance by

contractor employees.

An IGF is a particular task or function that must be

performed by a government official. IGF is a

policy term which encompasses those governance

areas that require officials to exercise discretion

(e.g., policy decision-making, performance and

mission accountability, and execution of monetary

transactions and entitlements).

10 USC Section 4508.

DoDI 1100.22, Policy

and Procedures for

Determining Workforce

Mix.

DoDI 5000.85.

FAR Subpart 7.5;

DFARS Subpart 207-5

64 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Name

Requirement Description

References

Leasing

Guidance and regulations governing

leasing equipment.

FAR Subpart 7.4;

DFARS Subpart

207.4; AFFARS

5307.4; DoD FMR

7000.14- R; OMB

Circulars A-11; A-

94, Guidelines and

Discount Rates for

Benefit-Cost

Analysis Of Federal

Programs

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 65

Name

Requirement Description

References

Scientific and

Technical

Information

(STINFO)

Properly mark equipment leased and purchased for

secondary distribution including the appropriate

distribution statement, the export control warning

and the proper destruction notice for destruction

purposes when the data is no longer needed.

Information held on electronic storage systems must

be access controlled according to the instructions of

the (STINFO) distribution statements. Releasing

offices and individuals must maintain a record of

controlled STINFO releases for audit purposes.

DoDI 3200.12, DoD

Scientific and

Technical Information

Program (STIP);

DoDM 3200.14,

Principles and

Operational

Parameters of the

DoD Scientific and

Technical Information

Program (STIP);

DoDI 5230.24,

Distribution

Statements on

Technical Documents;

DoDD 5230.25,

Withholding of

Unclassified

Technical Data from

Public Disclosure.

DAFPD 61-1;

Management of

Scientific and Technical

Information

DAFI 61-201;

Management of

Scientific and Technical

Information (STINFO).

The Technical

Cooperation

Program

The Technical Cooperation Program is used to

acquaint participating countries with each other’s

technology base programs to avoid duplication

and identify technologies of interest for possible

collaboration.

DoDI 3100.08, The

Technical Cooperation

Program (TTCP)

Value

Engineering (VE)

Program

DoD Components implement a VE program to

improve military worth and reduce acquisition

and ownership costs.

FAR Part 48.

DoDI 4245.14

66 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Name

Requirement Description

References

Planning for

Federal

Sustainability in

the Next Decade

As a part of integrating ESOH into systems

engineering, program offices should evaluate the

inclusion of sustainable alternatives in system

design and services acquisition. Alternative

considerations include but are not limited to air

emissions, noise profile, hazardous

materials/waste, pollution prevention activities,

and recycling.

EO 14057, Catalyzing

Clean Energy

Industries and Jobs

Through Federal

Sustainability

EO 13990, Protecting

Public Health and the

Environment and

Restoring Science to

Tackle the Climate

Crisis

Clean Air Act

Pollution Prevention

Act

Clean Water Act

Clean Air Act

Pollution Prevention

Act

Clean Water Act

Clean Air Act

Pollution Prevention

Act

Clean Water Act”

Non-Lethal

Weapons

Development

Assess the risk of significant injury and determine

the Human Effects Readiness Level, obtain

appropriate legal reviews, and obtain DoD Human

Effects Review Board evaluation and

recommendations prior to each milestone decision.

DoDI 3200.19, Non-

Lethal Weapons (NLW)

Human Effects

Characterization

Autonomy in

Weapon Systems

When developing autonomous and semi-

autonomous weapon systems, assess the

requirements and guidelines in the directive.

DoDD 3000.09,

Autonomy in Weapon

Systems

COMSEC

Applies to the accountability of COMSEC/CCI

that require protection and COMSEC/CCI

materials that need to be developed, acquired,

operated, maintained, and disposed of in

accordance with COMSEC instructions. The

DAF COMSEC/CCI Central authority is

AFLCMC/HNC. Questions related to future

modernization and sustainment of COMSEC/CCI

should be directed to the AFLCMC/HNC.

DoDI 8523.01,

Communications

Security (COMSEC);

CNSSI No 4001,

Controlled

Cryptographic Items;

AFMAN 17-1302-O

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 67

Name

Requirement Description

References

National Security

Exception to Full

and Open

Competition

The national security exception may be utilized

to authorize limited competition in certain

narrow circumstances; however, it may not

authorize sole- source contracts solely through

use of the national security exception (whether

under an individual or class Justification and

Approval) unless disclosure of the agency’s

needs to more than one source would

compromise national security.

10 USC Section 3201,

Full and Open

Competition.

FAR 6.302-6

Certification

Procedures for

Navigation

Warfare

(NAVWAR)

Compliance

Programs will conduct analysis and test of

Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) enabled

equipment against measures of effectiveness-

based performance standards. (T-0) The Service

MDA will report to the DoD CIO the

determination regarding the sufficiency of

NAVWAR compliance certification for each

platform or system under consideration for

development or production following the

acquisition milestone decision.

DoDI 4650.08,

Positioning,

Navigation, and Timing

(PNT) and Navigation

Warfare

Small Business

Programs

Applies to supplies, services, and

construction acquisitions above $10,000.

FAR Part 19; DFARS

219; AFFARS 5319.

AFPD 90-18

AFI 90-1801

External Business

Partners

Apply approved Organization Unique

Identification (OUID) standards and

guidelines for use in DoD business

transactions with Federal and State

agencies, non-governmental

organizations, and domestic and foreign

persons and organizations external to

DoD

DoDI 8320.06

68 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 5

SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

5.1. Systems Engineering (SE) Overview. Systems engineering provides the integrating

technical processes and design leadership to define and balance system performance, life cycle

cost, schedule, risk, system security, and system safety within and across individual systems and

programs. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, embeds systems engineering in program

planning and execution to support the entire system life cycle. It requires optimization at the

system level, using system engineering processes (paragraph 5.2) throughout the life cycle

(paragraph 5.3) to integrate user capability needs with design considerations (paragraph 5.4) to

affordably satisfy customer needs. Reference DoDI 5000.88, Engineering of Defense Systems, for

additional guidance.

5.1.1. Digital Engineering. The PM utilizes Digital Engineering (to include model-based

systems engineering), modular open system approaches, software-defined capabilities, and

commercial standards and interfaces to the maximum extent practicable. The PM documents

justifications for not utilizing any of these new, rapid tools in the Acquisition Strategy to obtain

MDA approval or redirection. The PM leverages DAF enterprise tasks for Digital Materiel

Management wherever possible. For systems in sustainment, the program office should

implement model-based systems engineering to the maximum extent practicable.

5.1.2. Life Cycle Systems Engineering. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, is

responsible for assuring the proper application of engineering principles, processes, and

practices across the life cycle of a system to ensure that it is satisfying the user’s capability

needs as defined by the system’s lead and using command organizations.

5.1.2.1. Configuration management and control, deficiency reporting and response,

reliability, maintainability, integrity, HSI implementation, ESOH risk management,

mishap investigation, and other engineering practices and efforts combine to successfully

develop, test, build, field, operate, sustain, and dispose of systems.

5.1.2.2. The PM includes representatives of the operational, maintenance and sustainment,

safety, and T&E communities in system engineering efforts. In addition, the PM

establishes and documents relationships and responsibilities with other organizations that

support or interface with systems or end items managed by the PM.

5.1.2.3. The PM monitors the fielded system by tracking and evaluating system data to

ensure the preservation of the technical baseline. The PM conducts periodic in-service

reviews with the lead and using commands using leading and trailing indicator data

elements selected in concert with the users to help ensure effective communication of

issues, concerns, and priorities. The PM documents how life cycle systems engineering

requirements are being met in the Program Management Agreement, SEP, and LCSP,

avoiding duplication.

5.1.3. Systems Engineering Plan. The PM’s fundamental technical planning document is the

SEP. It defines methods for implementing all system requirements having technical content,

technical staffing, and technical management. Reference DoDI 5000.88 for additional SEP

guidance.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 69

5.1.3.1. For ACAT ID programs, SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ signs the SEP prior to sending it to

USD(R&E) for approval. Per DoDI 5000.88, ACAT ID SEPs are submitted to the

USD(R&E) for review and approval at least 30 days before the required approval date.

(T-0)

5.1.3.2. The MDA is the final SEP approval authority, regardless of program

categorization or pathway. Approved MDAP SEPs will be provided to the USD(R&E) for

information purposes. (T-0)

5.1.3.3. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, prepares a SEP for formal approval as

required by DoDI 5000.88. (T-0) The Chief Engineer complies with standard content and

format of the DoD SEP Outline. SEPs should reference organization or portfolio standard

engineering process documents, if appropriate. Deviations from these referenced processes

should be documented in the SEP.

5.1.3.4. Post Milestone C, the PEO establishes a review and approval schedule for each

program office in the PEO’s portfolio. The program manager and Chief Engineer review

the SEP with attachments for currency and consistency with other program documentation

and update and approve it per the PEO’s schedule. The SEP should be a “living” “go to”

blueprint for the conduct, management, and control of the technical aspects of the

government’s program from concept to disposal.

5.1.3.5. The PM ensures that the contractor systems engineering approach is aligned to the

program’s SEP.

5.1.3.6. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, should review the relevant digital

practices, methodologies, and resources available using the Air Force Digital Guidebook

(https://usaf.dps.mil/teams/afmcde/SitePages/Home.aspx) prior to implementation of

digital engineering plans and strategies.

5.1.4. Mission Assurance for Space Programs. The PM ensures that mission assurance is an

integral part of the space system development and is integrated throughout life cycle and

documented in life cycle documentation. Mission assurance is defined as the disciplined

application of proven scientific, engineering, quality, and program management principles

towards the goal of achieving mission success. Mission assurance follows a general system

engineering framework and uses risk management and independent assessment as cornerstones

throughout the program life cycle. Mission assurance does not replace the mandatory elements

of the system safety process described in MIL-STD-882E unless waived by the MDA.

5.1.5. Certifications. Certifications provide a formal acknowledgement by a mandatory

approval authority that a system or program meets specific requirements. The PM ensures all

necessary certifications are obtained prior to testing and operational use and maintained for the

life of the system.

5.1.5.1. The PM includes in the SEP applicable certifications for the program and when

they are required. The PM also includes certification activities and events in the IMS.

5.1.5.2. AAFDID provides a list of statutory and regulatory requirements and

certifications. DAFPAM 63-128, Attachment 14, Acquisition Program Technical

Certifications Summary provides a list of potential certifications for the PM to review for

applicability.

70 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.1.5.3. A PM for aircraft systems (manned and unmanned) obtains required airworthiness

approvals in accordance with DAFI 62-601.

5.1.5.4. A PM for nuclear weapon systems obtains required nuclear certification in

accordance with AFI 63-125.

5.1.6. System Engineering Role in Contracts. The PM includes system engineering

requirements in program contracting efforts to ensure offerors provide sufficient system

engineering resources. The primary tool for shaping a program contract is the RFP.

5.1.6.1. The Chief Engineer participates in the RFP development team and is responsible

for all technical aspects. The Chief Engineer, at a minimum, ensures that the RFP:

5.1.6.1.1. References required operational documentation and specifications.

5.1.6.1.2. Identifies appropriate design requirements.

5.1.6.1.3. Identifies technical data to be produced by the contractor and accessed by

the government.

5.1.6.1.4. Specifies testing and verification requirements.

5.1.6.1.5. Specifies certification requirements.

5.1.6.1.6. Specifies all technical review and technical documentation requirements.

5.1.6.1.7. Specifies system security requirements.

5.1.6.2. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)-15288, Systems and

Software Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes, IEEE 15288.1, Standard for

Application of Systems Engineering on Defense Programs, and IEEE- 15288.2, Standard

for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense Programs, provide industry-accepted

standards and criteria for implementing systems engineering for DoD programs.

5.1.7. System of Systems and Family of Systems Engineering. System engineering for System

of Systems and Family of Systems emphasizes interoperability among systems developed

under different sponsorship, management, and primary acquisition processes, and often

operated by other Services, Agencies, allies, and coalition partners.

5.1.7.1. The PM and Chief Engineer analyzes the program’s system operations concept

and capability document to identify external dependencies, interoperability, and

cybersecurity needs and ensure that they are integrated into the program’s requirements

decomposition, risk management, interface management, architecture, verification,

validation, and other processes.

5.1.7.2. Digital Engineering (to include Model Based Systems Engineering) is an effective

means for understanding complex System of Systems, Family of Systems, and can provide

insights into interoperability in the total mission context.

5.1.7.3. The Chief Engineer identifies interdependent systems that may be impacted by a

proposed baseline change, and during the design process, the PM coordinates the change

with the PM (or equivalents) of the affected systems.

5.1.8. DAF Technical Authority. SAF/AQR is the DAF Chief Engineer and Technical

Authority per HAF MD 1-10, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, Technology

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 71

and Logistics). The DAF Chief Engineer and Technical Authority provides the SAE unbiased

technical advice for pre-acquisition investment decisions and throughout the acquisition life

cycle; engages implementing commands and center-level engineering offices to provide

technical support to PEOs and PMs; oversees DAF Engineering Enterprise policy and

guidance; SAF/AQR and SAF/SQA conduct ITRAs and independent post-Preliminary Design

Review (PDR) and post-Critical Design Review (CDR) assessments; and directs external

technical assessments of programs, as needed. Director of Architecture, Science, and

Technology (SAF/SQA), per HAFMD 1-17, Assistant Secretary of The Air Force (Space

Acquisition and Integration) is responsible for serving as DAF lead for architecture, S&T, and

engineering oversight for space systems and programs. SAF/SQA serves as the technical

advisor to the Space SAE for pre-acquisition investment decisions, and acquisition program

technical and engineering integration program risk, for space systems and programs. Provides

systems engineering oversight and support for program development, documentation, and

reviews prior to and throughout the acquisition life cycle of space systems and programs.

SAF/SQA is also responsible for Independent Technical Risk Assessments (ITRAs) and

independent post-Preliminary Design Review (PDR) and post-Critical Design Review (CDR)

assessments; and directs external technical assessments of space programs, as required.

5.2. Systems Engineering Processes. Application of system engineering processes enables

sound decision-making which increases capability maturity and reduces risk. The Chief Engineer

ensures systems engineering processes are integrated. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM,

documents the tailoring of systems engineering processes in the SEP.

5.2.1. Technical Management Processes.

5.2.1.1. Technical Planning. Technical planning identifies processes, schedules,

personnel and skills, facilities, and other internal and external resources necessary for the

technical effort.

5.2.1.2. Decision Analysis. Decision analysis helps the PM and the Chief Engineer

understand the impact of uncertainty on decision-making and identifies and communicates

a course of action that best balances competing objectives. The Chief Engineer identifies,

organizes, and executes necessary trade studies to support program technical decisions and

presents the resulting recommendations to the PM.

5.2.1.3. Technical Assessment. Technical Assessment consists of formal technical

reviews established by DoDI 5000.88. (T-0) Formal technical reviews assess design

progress, technical risk, and program maturity at key points in life cycle, and determine

whether to proceed to next level of development.

5.2.1.3.1. The PM and Chief Engineer co-chair principal formal technical reviews.

The PM ensures that principal formal technical reviews are event-driven and that

entrance and exit criteria are established ahead of time as identified in the SEP. (T-1)

Unless waived through the SEP approval process, the PM will conduct these system

level reviews, or equivalent:

5.2.1.3.1.1. System Requirements Review or System Functional Review (SFR).

5.2.1.3.1.2. PDR.

5.2.1.3.1.3. CDR.

72 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.2.1.3.1.4. System Verification Review or Functional Configuration Audit.

5.2.1.3.1.5. Production Readiness Review (PRR).

5.2.1.3.1.6. Physical Configuration Audit.

5.2.1.3.2. The PM will invite SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA (for space systems) and the

supporting Center or FLDCOM engineering functional office to attend the formal

technical reviews identified in paragraph 5.2.1.3. (T-0) The PM will also provide

access to the technical data relevant to the issues, risks, and topics to be addressed at a

given technical review as follows:

5.2.1.3.2.1. ACAT 1D PMs will include participation of SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA

(for space systems), the supporting Center engineering functional office, and

OUSD(R&E) representatives in formal system–level reviews identified in

paragraph 5.2.1.3.1. Additionally, the PM will ensure an OUSD(R&E)

representative is invited to all ACAT 1D sub-system PDRs and CDRs. (T-1)

5.2.1.3.2.2. For ACAT 1D programs, OUSD(R&E) assesses the system-level

PDRs, CDRs, and provides the MDA with the results of these assessments of

technical risks, maturation of the technical baseline, and the program’s readiness to

proceed.

5.2.1.3.2.3. The supporting Center or FLDCOM engineering functional office is

designated as the Independent Review Team (IRT) for programs residing in that

office. For all ACAT IB/C programs, the supporting Center engineering functional

office will provide the PM and SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA (for space systems) with

post assessments of the results of system-level PDRs and CDRs. (T-2) The

supporting Center engineering functional office assessments will use the SAF/AQR

or SAF/SQA provided reporting template to identify technical risks and maturation

of the technical baseline. (T-1) SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA will provide the Center

engineering functional offices with the current template, updated as necessary to

incorporate lessons learned. The supporting Center or FLDCOM engineering

functional office will coordinate the draft post-PDR and/or CDR assessments with

the PM, but the supporting Center or FLDCOM engineering functional office

director will sign the final version of the assessment and provide it to the PM and

SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA as appropriate. (T-2) The PM will include that assessment

in the information provided to support the MDA’s 10 USC 4252, Major Defense

Acquisition Programs: Certification Required Before Milestone B Approval,

certification. (T-0) In certain instances, SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA may determine if

the ITRA team can accomplish the post-PDR and/or CDR assessment instead of

tasking a separate IRT. (T-1)

5.2.1.3.3. Technology Readiness Assessments. TRAs are the primary tool to

benchmark and begin to assess maturity of critical technologies.

5.2.1.3.3.1. TRAs are a statutory requirement for MDAPs at the Development RFP

Release Decision Point with an update at Milestone B to inform the 4252

certifications per DoDI 5000.85. (T-0) The USD (R&E) is required to conduct an

independent assessment of the Program Manager’s TRA for MDAPs as part of the

Development RFP Release Decision Point Review. The TRA at Milestone C is a

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 73

regulatory requirement when Milestone C is Program Initiation.

5.2.1.3.3.2. TRAs are a regulatory information requirement for non-MDAPs.

5.2.1.3.3.3. MDAs for all non-MDAP programs with high technological risk are

encouraged to require the Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, to perform a TRA.

5.2.1.3.3.4. For MDAPs that requires a TRA, the PM, in collaboration with Center

or FLDCOM Level Engineering, develops the following TRA plan, final critical

technology list, draft (also known as “preliminary”) TRA report, and submits final

TRA report for approval by SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA on behalf of SAF/AQ or

SAF/SQ, respectfully. (T-0) Reference DoD TRA Guidance for more information.

5.2.1.3.3.5. For programs for which an ITRA is conducted, a technology readiness

assessment report is not required. PMs with the Chief Engineer should continue to

assess and document the technology maturity of all critical technologies consistent

with the technology readiness assessment guidance. ITRA teams may leverage

technology maturation activities and receive access to results to perform

independent technical reviews and assessments.

5.2.1.3.4. TRAs do not provide a comprehensive assessment of the degree of risk

mitigation needed prior to development. Deeper analysis of the actual risks associated

with the preferred design and any recommended risk mitigation is conducted in

accordance with Chapter 4.

5.2.1.3.5. IEEE-15288.2 provides industry-accepted standards/criteria for technical

reviews and audits of DoD programs.

5.2.1.4. Requirements Management. The PM implements a consistent and rigorous

process for development, establishment, and control of technical requirements. The PM

ensures that all validated and approved user capability requirements are traceable to the

system specification.

5.2.1.4.1. The PM ensures that program and system requirements include all

documented user requirements, airworthiness requirements, statutory, regulatory,

system security, and certification requirements; and ensures bi-directional

requirements traceability from the systems level down through all verification and

validation activities.

5.2.1.5. Risk Management. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, ensures technical

risks are incorporated into the program’s overall risk management effort as described in

Chapter 4.

5.2.1.6. Configuration Management. Configuration management is formalized change

management of the system Technical Baseline, which includes a Functional Baseline, an

Allocated Baseline, and a Product Baseline. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM,

uses configuration management to establish and control product attributes and technical

baselines across the system life cycle. SAE-EIA-649-1, Configuration Management

Requirements for Defense Contractors, provides industry-accepted standards/criteria for

implementing configuration management on DoD programs. MIL-HDBK-61B contains

detailed information about configuration management.

74 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.2.1.6.1. The Functional Baseline (also referred to as the Requirements Baseline)

consists of the documented, validated, and approved system-level (top level) functional

and performance requirements and design constraints, their allocation or assignment to

the next level, and all approved changes. Typically, it is at the System Functional

Review where this baseline is first approved.

5.2.1.6.2. The Allocated Baseline consists of the documented, validated, and approved

“design-to” requirements, and all changes thereto approved in accordance with the

contract. The allocated baseline includes (a) the physical hierarchy, (b) the design-to

requirements for each product in the hierarchy, and (c) separable documentation

identifying all design-to requirements for each component and integrated grouping of

components.

5.2.1.6.3. The Product Baseline is the “build-to” requirements for each physical

element to be manufactured; desired user stories to be addressed by the minimum viable

product (MVP) of each software line of effort as well as a description of the agile

methodology for continuously delivering software capability throughout the system life

cycle; and the “buy-to” requirements for any other physical element, part, or material

to be procured. It should be noted that because software is never done, that the baseline

should be seen as a minimum viable product (MVP). Software should be continuously

delivered and improved.

5.2.1.6.4. Each product support strategy for an asset/system which includes

commercial hardware or software must ensure timely updates (e.g., patching,

versioning) to maintain cybersecurity as well as to take advantage of commercial

production cycles.

5.2.1.6.5. The PM ensures key configuration management practices and

responsibilities are summarized in the SEP in accordance with the DoD SEP Outline.

5.2.1.7. Data Management. Data Management identifies, acquires, manages, maintains,

and provides access to the technical data and computer software required to manage and

support a system throughout its life cycle. The PM manages digital product design data

using a DoD standardized product data management system that must be defined and

justified within the SEP and approved by the MDA (may be waived by the MDA after

consultation with SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA). See Chapter 4 for Intelligence Mission Data

management and Life-Cycle Mission Data Plan guidance and Chapter 7 for other data

management guidance.

5.2.1.8. Interface Management. The interface management process ensures interface

definition and compliance among the internal elements that comprise a system, as well as

with other systems. The PM and the Chief Engineer ensure that internal and external

interface requirement changes are documented in accordance with the program’s

configuration management plan.

5.2.2. Technical Processes.

5.2.2.1. Stakeholder Requirements Definition. The PM and Chief Engineer work with the

user to establish, assess and refine operational needs, attributes, performance parameters,

and constraints that flow from and influence user described capabilities.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 75

5.2.2.2. Requirements Analysis. The PM ensures that all relevant program requirements

and design considerations (see paragraph 5.4) are addressed in program specifications and

baselines. If the PM generates program-unique specifications, they should be prepared in

accordance with MIL-STD-961, Defense and Program-Unique Specifications Format and

Content, and informed by its companion document SD-15, Guide for Performance

Specifications.

5.2.2.3. Architecture Design. The PM ensures that architectural descriptions conform to

the standards of the DoD Architecture Framework. For IT and NSS, refer to Chapter 8.

5.2.2.3.1. The PM and Chief Engineer ensures architecture products include the

program’s system as well as its potential interfaces and impacts to external systems

(i.e., the System of Systems and Family of Systems environment). The PM develops

architecture products as early as possible and maintains them throughout the life cycle.

5.2.2.3.2. The PM applies Modular Open Systems Approach and Open Technology

Development to the system architecture design wherever feasible. (T-0)

5.2.2.3.3. The PM conducts architecture-based assessments of trades in the overall

operational context. The PM and Chief Engineer ensures each principal formal

technical review includes an architecture-based assessment to confirm that the system

development remains aligned to the operational requirements.

5.2.2.4. Implementation. Implementation provides the system design and creates the

lowest level subsystems in the system hierarchy by increasing subsystem maturity,

reducing subsystem risk, and ensuring the subsystems are ready for integration,

verification, and validation.

5.2.2.5. Integration. Integration systematically assembles lower-level system elements

into successively higher-level assemblies with verification at each step.

5.2.2.6. Verification. Verification confirms the program’s system satisfies system

specifications. The PM and the Chief Developmental Tester/Test Manager manage

verification activities, to include developmental testing. The PM and the Chief Engineer

review the results of verification throughout the life cycle. Refer to DoDI 5000.89_DAFI

99-103 for the T&E process.

5.2.2.7. Validation. Validation provides objective evidence that the system meets user

capability needs and achieves its intended use in its intended operational environment.

OT&E is a core validation process. Refer to DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103 for more

information on T&E processes. The PM ensures the system is ready for OT&E. The PM

implements the dedicated operational testing review process as described in DAFMAN 63-

119 and briefs the MDA who certifies system readiness for Initial OT&E.

5.2.2.8. Transition. Transition delivers and sustains a system for the end user.

5.2.2.8.1. The Chief Engineer works with the PSM to ensure the LCSP includes

appropriate technical information for sustainment and product support.

5.2.2.8.2. The PM provides TOs and other maintenance and supportability technical

data to the end user in accordance with Chapter 7.

76 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.2.2.8.3. The PM establishes and maintains deficiency reporting processes for

operators and maintainers and ensures that all validated deficiency reports are tracked

to actual resolution of the deficiency. The PM works with the Chief Engineer to

document this process in the SEP no later than Milestone C. The PM and Chief

Engineer co-chairs deficiency board reviews to oversee this process. The PM will

select the tools used for deficiency reporting considering component commonality with

other programs, software development methods and other considerations. Refer to TO

00-35D-54, USAF Deficiency Reporting, Investigation, and Resolution for process

information.

5.3. System Engineering Activities in the Life Cycle.

5.3.1. Early Systems Engineering. Early systems engineering encompasses pre-acquisition

technical planning, principally in support of MDDs and Analysis of Alternatives, to ensure

leadership is offered trade space for portfolio and risk management. The results of early

systems engineering activities are documented in the Concept Characterization and Technical

Description and are the principal artifacts of early systems engineering. The AF Early Systems

Engineering Guide provides additional information. SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA, as applicable,

reviews the Concept Characterization and Technical Description and provides technical

recommendations to the decision authority. Provide SAF/AQR or SAF/SQA Concept

Characterization and Technical Descriptions prepared for requirements validation and

approval preceding MDD 90 days prior to the decision (can be waived by the MDA).

5.3.2. Systems Engineering During System Development. During system development, Chief

Engineer uses the systems engineering processes (paragraph 5.2) to integrate user capability

needs with design considerations (paragraph 5.4) to affordably satisfy customer needs.

5.3.3. Sustainment Systems Engineering. Beginning at Initial Operational Capability (IOC),

sustainment systems engineering is focused on maintaining the technical baseline of the

system. Key sustainment systems engineering considerations include but are not limited to the

following:

5.3.3.1. Configuration Management (see paragraph 5.2.1.6 and 5.2.1.7.).

5.3.3.2. Deficiency Reporting (see paragraph 5.2.2.8.3.).

5.3.3.3. DMSMS (see paragraph 5.4.9.).

5.3.3.4. Reliability and Maintainability (see paragraph 5.4.21.).

5.3.3.5. Manufacturing and Quality Management during operations and sustainment.

Refer to DAFI 63-145, Manufacturing and Quality Management.

5.3.3.6. Additive Manufacturing. Use of Additive Manufacturing to build replacement

parts for a system under a PM’s configuration control must be approved at the appropriate

level. Reference DoDI 5000.93_DAFI 63-149, Use of Additive Manufacturing, for more

information.

5.3.3.7. Engineering and Technical Support to Field-level Maintenance Organizations.

PMs provide engineering and technical support throughout the life cycle, beginning with

Initial OT&E. To provide engineering and technical support, PMs use organic or

contractor resources or a combination of the two. PMs address the engineering and

technical support strategy in the Milestone C SEP.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 77

5.3.4. Systems Engineering in Support of Demilitarization and Disposal. See Chapter 7.

5.4. Systems Engineering Design Considerations. The Chief Engineer uses system engineering

processes across the life cycle to accomplish trade-offs to provide balanced solutions, optimized

at the system-level, that affordably satisfy required user capabilities. PMs should identify key

design considerations that are critical to achieving the program’s technical requirements in the

plan’s mandatory Design Considerations table in accordance with the standard DoD SEP outline.

5.4.1. Unique Design Considerations.

5.4.1.1. Recorded System Information. For any system acquired, developed, or sustained

by the DAF, the PM collaborates with data user stakeholders to conduct a systematic

assessment of information needs (including mishap investigation, integrity programs,

maintenance, and operational analyses) to ensure the capture of critical information and

optimization of benefit while minimizing cost. This includes an assessment of needed

interfaces with existing information systems (e.g., Reliability and Maintainability

Information System (REMIS) Predictive Analytics and Decision Assistant, (PANDA)).

The PM re-assesses information needs and data collection capabilities as a part of aircraft

and system modifications. The uses of recorded system information include the following:

5.4.1.1.1. Mishap Investigation. All DAF aircraft requiring DAF airworthiness

approval, record crash survivable parametric and acoustic data that meets the minimum

requirements listed in AFPAM 63-129. All spacecraft requiring flight worthiness

approval, provide recorded launch and spacecraft data.

5.4.1.1.2. The PM ensures that aircraft employ devices (i.e., Emergency Locator

Transmitters and Underwater Locator Beacons) to enable recovery of the data

recording equipment in the event of a mishap. Consideration may be given to inhibiting

these devices to address combat operational concerns.

5.4.1.1.3. The PM provides the AF Safety Center the capability (hardware, software,

and training) to download and analyze crash survivable data for mishap investigations,

and updates that capability, as needed, throughout the life cycle.

5.4.1.1.4. For aircraft and space systems that do not meet these requirements, the

Commander of the lead command may waive the requirements. Parameters that are

not applicable to a particular platform (e.g., a C-130 afterburner nozzle position) do not

need to be waived.

5.4.1.1.4.1. The lead command’s Director of Safety is responsible for preparing,

staffing, and submitting waiver requests to the Commander.

5.4.1.1.4.2. The PM provides the lead command with the data on the cost,

schedule, and performance impacts of meeting these requirements.

5.4.1.1.4.3. Command Directors of Safety report approved waivers within 30 days

to the Air Force Chief of Safety (AF/SE) and provide the cost, schedule, and

technical information that supported the waiver decisions.

5.4.1.1.4.4. Existing waivers from the Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force remain

valid in accordance with their original terms and conditions.

78 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.1.1.5. Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance. Military Flight Operations

Quality Assurance provides insight into the operational usage of the aerial system

through analysis of flight maneuvers and identification of hazard trends. The Military

Flight Operations Quality Assurance program works with operations, system program

offices, maintenance, training, and safety to facilitate risk assessment and hazard

mitigation activities. See DAFI 91-225, Aviation Safety Programs, for more

information.

5.4.1.1.5.1. The PM provides integrated system solutions that support customer-

defined Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance capability needs for each

Mission Design Series the DAF acquires or uses (including manned and

unmanned). Reference AFPAM 63-129 for a listing of parameters.

5.4.1.1.5.2. The PM assists lead commands in assessing risks and determining

handling/mitigation measures when Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance

data analyses identify new hazards.

5.4.1.1.6. System Health and Usage Monitoring. The collection and monitoring of

Service use and performance data (including maintenance discrepancy reports, user

feedback, system and component failure reports, and mishap data) enables the

continuous assessment of fielded system technical health against documented

performance requirements and effectiveness, suitability, and risk measures.

5.4.1.1.6.1. The PM integrates system and end-item operational and maintenance

data collection, storage, and transmission.

5.4.1.1.6.2. For aircraft, the PM integrates user-defined, capability-based,

enhanced flight data requirements (e.g., integrity, training, Military Flight

Operations Quality Assurance, etc.) with the mandatory crash survivable recorder

requirement when identifying an aircraft flight data parameter recording, storage,

and transmission capability.

5.4.1.2. Product and System Integrity. For each Aircraft Mission Design Series, the DAF

acquires, uses, or leases, the PM establishes integrity programs.

5.4.1.2.1. The PM develops, documents, and executes integrity programs by applying

DAFI 63-140, and tailoring and integrating to the extent practicable: MIL-STD-1530D,

Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP); MIL-STD-1796, Avionics Integrity

Program (AVIP); MIL-STD-1798C, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity

Program; MIL-STD-3024, Propulsion System Integrity Program; and MIL-HDBK-

513, Low Observable Integrity Program.

5.4.1.2.2. PMs integrate corrosion prevention and control into the Mission Design

Series integrity programs.

5.4.1.2.3. PMs ensure that an individual certified to Level III in accordance with

National Aerospace Standard 410, Certification & Qualification of Nondestructive

Test Personnel, approves non-destructive inspection procedures, to include procedures

for TCTO and one time inspection purposes (e.g., Engineering Technical Assistance

Requests).

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 79

5.4.1.3. AF Metrology and Calibration. Acquisition of systems and equipment includes

assessment of calibration and measurement requirements in accordance with AFMAN 21-

113, Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) Management.

5.4.1.4. Space Unique Considerations (RESERVED).

5.4.2. Accessibility. The PM ensures all electronic and IT systems comply with Section 508

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 1194),

unless exempt under FAR 39.204 as a military system or NSS. (T-0)

5.4.3. Affordability-Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analysis.

5.4.3.1. MDAPs that proceeded through Milestone A (or other initial milestone) after

October 1, 2017, require a Secretary of Defense Cost goal vice an affordability goal or cap.

(T-0) See DoDI 5000.02 for additional guidance.

5.4.3.2. At Milestone B, the PM provides the results of cost analyses that quantitatively

depict the impact of trading cost against affordability drivers, such as capability and other

technical parameters (including KPPs when they are major cost drivers) to show the

program has established a cost-effective design point for these affordability drivers.

5.4.4. Anti-Counterfeiting. The PM manages the risk of counterfeit components as a part of

Program Protection Planning as described in Chapter 6.

5.4.5. Commercial-Off-the-Shelf. For COTS systems and components being contemplated

for use in the program, the PM evaluates the risks of using those items in the intended military

use environment. The PM applies the appropriate system engineering processes and design

considerations to COTS systems and components through the life cycle.

5.4.6. Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM).

Secure CNS/ATM capabilities, appropriate for the air system mission, are required for safe

and compliant operations in civil and DoD-controlled airspace. The AF has established the

CNS/ATM Center of Excellence (COE) as the centralized DAF resource for design expertise

to assist program offices with the implementation of life cycle CNS/ATM requirements and

with the execution of CNS/ATM performance assessments in support of airworthiness

certifications. AFPAM 63-129 contains additional guidance and resources. For all AF air

systems, the PM, supported by the Chief Engineer, is responsible to:

5.4.6.1. Include CNS/ATM capabilities and functionality in the aircraft’s airworthiness

certification baseline and assess their airworthiness in accordance with Airworthiness

Bulletin 325, Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management

(CNS/ATM) Compliance Assessment Process. (T-0)

5.4.6.2. Obtain standard CNS/ATM equipment through the centralized contracts and

approved products lists that are managed by the CNS/ATM COE. If not financially

advantageous, technically suitable, or supportive of program schedule, document decisions

to deviate from this direction in the MDA approved Acquisition Strategy.

5.4.6.3. For those CNS/ATM capabilities that require lifetime compliance assurance with

civil standards (e.g., Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum), establish and document

sustaining engineering procedures to maintain currency.

80 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.6.4. Provide requested technical support and documentation to the using

MAJCOM/FLDCOM’s CNS/ATM operational approval process (reference AFMAN 11-

202, Vol. 3, General Flight Rules).

5.4.6.5. If a CNS/ATM capability requires a navigation accuracy of Area

Navigation/Required Navigation Performance of four nautical miles or tighter, obtain a

Letter of Acceptance from the CNS/ATM COE that formally documents the acceptance of

the applicants’ processes, procedures, tools, and the plan for execution.

5.4.6.6. Within one week of discovery or notification of an issue impacting an air system’s

CNS/ATM capability, notify the COE, affected MAJCOM/FLDCOM, and the AF

Technical Airworthiness Authority.

5.4.7. Corrosion Prevention and Control. The AF Corrosion Prevention and Control program

is a part of the long-term DoD strategy that supports efforts to reduce total system ownership

cost. See DoDI 5000.67; MIL-STD-1568D, Materials and Processes for Corrosion

Prevention and Control in Aerospace Weapons Systems; and DoDI 5000.88 for additional

guidance. Further information, including the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control

Planning Guidebook for Systems and Equipment, can be found at the Defense Acquisition

University website [https://www.dau.edu/tools/corrosion-prevention-and-control-

planning-guidebook-military-systems-and-equipment].

5.4.7.1. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, conducts and integrates corrosion

prevention and control planning into appropriate program documentation in accordance

with DoDI 5000.67. The PM may include corrosion planning documentation in a separate,

Corrosion Prevention and Control Plan, which is considered a best practice, or the PM

includes corrosion planning in the SEP and LCSP. For ACAT I programs, the PM provides

the AF Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive, the Corrosion Prevention and Control

Plan, SEP, or LCSP prior to obtaining PEO approval.

5.4.7.2. The PM evaluates corrosion prevention and control as a part of system engineering

trades throughout program design and development activities.

5.4.7.3. For New Starts, the PM obtains early AF Corrosion Control and Prevention

Executive involvement in corrosion planning including comparing program document

content to the guidance in the DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook

for Military Systems and Equipment for each life cycle phase.

5.4.8. Critical Safety Items. Critical safety items are parts whose failure could cause loss of

life, permanent disability or major injury, loss of a system, or significant equipment damage.

Critical safety items should not be confused with “safety critical items” as defined in MIL-

STD- 882E. Title 10 USC Section 3243, Encouragement of New Competitors: Qualification

Requirement contains the critical safety items statutory requirements. DAF CSI regulatory

requirements are contained in AFI 20-106_IP, Management of Aviation Critical Safety Items.

See also DFARS 246.407, Nonconforming Supplies or Services, and DFARS 246.371,

Notification of Potential Safety Issues.

5.4.8.1. The program office Chief Engineer is the “Engineering Support Activity,” as

defined in AFI 20-106_IP, for all critical safety items under the direct configuration control

of the program.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 81

5.4.8.2. The Chief Engineer identifies critical safety items prior to critical design review

and identifies critical safety items on bills of materials.

5.4.8.3. Critical safety items not under the configuration control of the program must come

from sources approved by the Engineering Support Activity for those items.

5.4.8.4. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, develops and maintains an updated list

of critical safety items and corresponding critical characteristics, updated annually after

Full Operational Capability (FOC). The PM should ensure a process is in place to track

the impact of mishap investigations, deficiency reports, engineering change proposals and

other processes that may affect the inclusion of items on the list of critical safety items or

result in a change of the critical characteristics for critical safety items.

5.4.9. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages. DMSMS is the loss, or

impending loss, of manufacturers or suppliers of items, raw materials, or software.

5.4.9.1. SAF/AQ, in collaboration with SAF/SQ establishes policy and provides

management direction and oversight of the DMSMS program. Refer to DoDI 4245.15,

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Management, for additional

information. (T-0)

5.4.9.2. AFMC/CC is the designated lead office to implement integrated risk based

proactive DMSMS policy, procedures, regulations, guidance, and training. USSF/SSC will

designate a formal point of contact (POC) to work with AFMC and to implement DMSMS

policy and guidance tailored for Space Systems.

5.4.9.3. The PM includes integrated risk based proactive DMSMS management,

procedures, guidance, and training for systems engineering, manufacturing, sustainment,

technology protection, and T&E to reduce the occurrence and impact of DMSMS (e.g.,

cost, schedule delays, readiness) on programs and systems. (T-0)

5.4.9.4. The PM integrates DMSMS into program risk management activities (see

Chapter 4 and Chapter 6). (T-0) Consult SD-22, DMSMS Guidebook and SD-26,

DMSMS Contract Language, for additional information.

5.4.10. Disposal and Demilitarization. See Chapter 7.

5.4.11. Environment, Safety and Operational Health. The Chief Engineer, in support of the

PM, identifies, assesses, and mitigates potential ESOH risks to personnel, the system, and the

environment, and manages ESOH compliance requirements. The Chief Engineer:

5.4.11.1. Ensures ESOH risk management is integrated into systems engineering using the

system safety process described in MIL-STD-882E. The Chief Engineer uses the standard

matrix in MIL-STD-882E unless the PM obtains formal MDA approval to use an

alternative matrix. The Chief Engineer documents the specific matrix used by the program

and any required MDA approval of an alternative matrix in the SEP. Note: No approval

is required for an alternative ESOH risk matrix that adds only quantitative values to the

probability levels consistent with the probability word definitions in MIL-STD-882E.

However, only the MDA can approve deviations from the standard MIL-STD-882E

probability level word definitions and severity categories. As required by Chapter 4, the

PM uses the translation matrix in Attachment 3 to present the status of current High and

Serious ESOH risks on the standard 5x5 risk matrix during technical and program reviews.

82 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.11.2. Eliminates hazards where possible and manage ESOH risks of hazards that

cannot be eliminated.

5.4.11.3. Identifies and integrates ESOH design considerations and compliance

requirements into the systems engineering process. Examples of this include but are not

limited to the following:

5.4.11.3.1. Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)/EO 1211.

5.4.11.3.2. Obtaining required design certifications (e.g., airworthiness).

5.4.11.3.3. Prohibiting or strictly controlling the use of banned or restricted hazardous

materials. The Chief Engineer will not introduce new operational or maintenance

requirements for out-of- production Class I or Class II Ozone Depleting Substances

unless approved or waived by SAF/AQ (see DFARS Subpart 223.8, Ozone-Depleting

Substances and Greenhouse Gases, and AFFARS 5323.8, Ozone-Depleting

Substances). (T-0) The Chief Engineer will not introduce new operational or

maintenance requirements for hexavalent chromium unless approved by the PEO with

the coordination of the AF Corrosion Control and Prevention Executive (see DFARS

Subpart 223.73, Minimizing the Use of Materials Containing Hexavalent Chromium).

(T-0) The Chief Engineer will not introduce new operational or maintenance

requirements for regulated hydrofluorocarbons and will transition to

hydrofluorocarbon alternatives in existing systems when those alternatives meet

mission requirements, are cost effective, and are available from the domestic and allied

industrial base (see USD(A&S) memorandum, Establishment of Department of

Defense Hydrofluorocarbon Allowance Management and Allocation Process per the

American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, 18 Jul 22). (T-0)

5.4.11.3.4. In response to lead or using command guidance regarding noise and

emissions restrictions at planned fielding location(s), provide system noise and

emissions data to support basing of the system.

5.4.11.4. Includes the ESOH management planning in the SEP. The SEP identifies the

strategy for integrating ESOH considerations into systems engineering process and

relationships between ESOH effort and other systems engineering activities, the ESOH risk

matrix used by the program, and contractual ESOH requirements.

5.4.11.4.1. During the SEP approval process for Milestones B and C, both the PESHE

and the NEPA/EO 12114 compliance schedule must be provided to all reviewers.

Additional ESOH sustainment considerations after Milestone C are included in the

LCSP.

5.4.11.4.2. The Chief Engineer of fielded systems should periodically review the

PESHE at a minimum every five years and update as needed.

5.4.11.5. Uses the Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health

Evaluation (PESHE) as the life cycle repository for program office ESOH data, to include

hazard tracking system data, hazardous materials, ESOH compliance requirements, and

environmental impact information necessary to support NEPA/EO 12114, Environmental

Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, analysis.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 83

5.4.11.5.1. For ESOH risks, the PESHE identifies hazards and records initial ESOH

risk assessments, risk handling/mitigation measures, target risk levels, current risk

levels, event risk levels, and risk acceptance decisions. See Chapter 4 for ESOH risk

assessment, mitigation and acceptance.

5.4.11.5.2. For hazardous materials, either imbedded in the system or used for system

O&M, the PESHE includes information on the locations, amounts, disposal

requirements, and special training requirements. The Chief Engineer can use the

optional Task 108, Hazardous Materials Management Plan, in MIL-STD-882E or the

Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) National Aerospace Standard (NAS) 411,

Hazardous Materials Management Program, as the basis for a program’s hazardous

materials management. Both Task 108 and NAS 411 require a contractual listing of

the hazardous materials, which the program intends to manage. The contractual listing

categorizes each listed hazardous material as Prohibited, Restricted, or Tracked. NAS

411-1, Hazardous Material Target List, provides a DoD-AIA agreed-upon baseline

listing of hazardous materials for each category to use as the starting point in defining

the program’s list of hazardous materials.

5.4.11.6. Uses the NEPA/EO 12114 compliance schedule to document completed and

projected analyses. The Chief Engineer should also incorporate analyses that are on the

critical path. The NEPA/EO 12114 compliance schedule includes, but is not limited to:

5.4.11.6.1. Each proposed action (e.g., testing or fielding).

5.4.11.6.2. Proponent for each action (i.e., the organization that exercises primary

management responsibility for a proposed action or activity).

5.4.11.6.3. Anticipated start date for each action at each specific location.

5.4.11.6.4. Anticipated NEPA/EO 12114 document type.

5.4.11.6.5. Anticipated start and completion dates for each document.

5.4.11.6.6. The document approval authority.

5.4.11.7. Ensures the PESHE and the NEPA Compliance Schedule are approved as a part

of the SEP at Milestones B and C. They are reviewed and approved by the PEO at the

Full-Rate Production Decision Review/Full Deployment Decision Review/Build

Approval. In support of these approvals, the Chief Engineer obtains coordination of the

PESHE from the supporting ESOH functional areas as applicable. The Chief Engineer

obtains coordination of the SEP at Milestone A from the supporting ESOH functional areas

since the PESHE and NEPA Compliance Schedule are not included with the SEP at

Milestone A. The ESOH Management content is critical for the SEP at Milestone A

because it governs the Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction phase ESOH activities.

5.4.11.8. Provides the ESOH hazard data (including the hazardous materials information)

to the AF Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) responsible for including these data in TO 00-

105E-9, Aerospace Emergency Rescue and Mishap Response Information (Emergency

Services).

5.4.11.9. Provides a safety release for the system prior to each developmental and

operational test involving known system hazards to people, equipment, or the environment.

The safety release identifies the hazards involved in the test and their formal risk

84 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

acceptance. This is in addition to and can inform any safety release provided by the T&E

organization.

5.4.11.10. Provides system specific ESOH analyses and data to support using commands’

and T&E organizations’ NEPA and EO 12114 documentation requirements.

5.4.11.11. Works with DAF Safety Center to provide the inputs required by DoDI

6055.07, Mishap Notification, Investigation, Reporting, and Record Keeping, Enclosure 4,

section 3.b.(9) as part of mishap investigations of all Class A and B mishaps involving their

systems. The PM provides analyses of the ESOH hazards that may have contributed to the

mishap under investigation, and makes recommendations for resulting materiel risk

mitigations measures, especially those designed to minimize the potential for human error.

5.4.11.12. Integrates ESOH and Human Systems Integration.

5.4.12. Human System Integration. Each system consists of three major components:

hardware, software, and human. The SEP documents how the PM integrates HSI design

considerations early in the design process and throughout the life cycle. Human Factors

Engineering is conducted to provide safe and effective human interfaces and ensure that

systems are designed to account for human capabilities and limitations. For additional HSI

guidance contact the AFLCMC Crew Systems and HSI Enterprise Branch.

5.4.12.1. HSI addresses the integration of seven domains: manpower, personnel, training,

safety and occupational health, habitability, force protection and survivability, and human

factors engineering. HSI activities occur throughout the acquisition life cycle and include

considerations during system design, development, fielding and sustainment.

5.4.12.2. For additional information on HSI implementation, refer to Enclosure 7,

DAFPAM 63-128, MIL-STD-1472H, Human engineering, and MIL-STD-46855A,

Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment, and Facilities.

5.4.12.3. Crew stations and maintainer interfaces are special emphasis areas for DAF HSI.

Crew stations and maintainer interfaces are the primary human interfaces for manned and

unmanned air systems and must promote situational awareness, facilitate task

accomplishment, and physically accommodate operators and maintainers using the most

current anthropometric data. The PM, supported by the Chief Engineer, works jointly with

the AF Flight Standards Agency, the AFLCMC Crew System and HSI Enterprise Branch,

the AFOTEC, the AF Test Center, and MAJCOM/FLDCOM operational representatives

to ensure that crew stations and maintainer interfaces meet end user requirements and avoid

deviations from DAF standards for accommodation, displays, task performance evaluation,

alerting, and symbology. AFLCMC’s Crew Systems Engineering and Human Systems

Integration Enterprise Branch (AFLCMC/EZFC) and Human Systems Division’s Airmen

Accommodation Lab (AAL) will ensure long-term anthropometric studies, existing and

future anthropometric data as well as planned studies are included in design specification

building. For additional information on cockpit, crew station, and maintainer design and

best practices, see AFPAM 63-129, Chapter 6.

5.4.12.3.1. The PM will ensure the anthropometric design specification minimums will

be included on all applicable modifications and acquisitions.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 85

5.4.12.3.2. Anthropometric design specifications must accommodate body sizes of at

least the central 95 percent of the U.S. recruiting population including all races and

genders. Program design specification will be built to ensure all systems meet the 8

test cases identified in Figure 5.1 below to ensure 95 percent accommodation.

Preference will be given to solutions that exceed 95 percent accommodation rates.

AFLCMC is authorized to update Figure 5.1 as needed to meet policy intent.

Figure 5.1. Use Cases for 95 Percent Accommodation.

5.4.12.3.3. When circumstances arise that prevent meeting the 95 percent

accommodation threshold, a waiver must be granted from the SAE for the program.

The SAE may choose to delegate waiver authority.

5.4.13. Insensitive Munitions. The PM for all systems containing energetics ensures that

applicable insensitive munitions requirements are incorporated into the system design and that

all required safety reviews and certifications are obtained. The PM will comply with

insensitive munitions requirements in accordance with DoDI 5000.88. (T-0)

5.4.14. Intelligence. See Chapter 4.

5.4.15. Item Unique Identification. See Chapter 4.

5.4.16. Interoperability & Dependency (I&D).

5.4.16.1. See paragraphs 5.1.6 for System of Systems and Family of Systems and 5.2.2.3

for Interoperability and Dependency in architecting. Refer to Chapter 8 for additional

information on interoperability of IT and NSS.

5.4.16.2. DoDM 4120.24, DoDI 2010.06, and AFI 60-101 provide guidance on

considering applicable U.S.-ratified International Standardization Agreements for system

compatibility and logistics interchangeability of materiel in allied and coalition operations.

5.4.16.2.1. The PM addresses system compatibility and logistics interchangeability for

allied and coalition operations (e.g., databases, fuel, transportability, ammunition, etc.).

The PM identifies areas that may require verification to ensure a capability is

interoperable in accordance with the JCIDS Manual.

86 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.16.2.2. The PM addresses future multinational operations in acquisition of all

materiel intended for use by U.S. Forces. Refer to DoDI 2010.06. For programs

delivering capabilities with potential use in allied and coalition operations, the PM

identifies and assesses International Standardization Agreements applicable to areas

such as cross-servicing (with interchangeable fuels, lubricants, gases, and munitions),

armaments, air transport and airdrop, medical evacuation, combat search and rescue,

crash/fire/rescue, and geospatial/intelligence (including classification standards).

5.4.16.2.3. Following approval of the Acquisition Strategy, the PM notifies AF/A5/7

and SAF/AQ (SF/S5/8 and SAF/SQ, for space systems and programs) of all applicable

International Standardization Agreements that are not included in an

acquisition/systems requirements document or system specification to allow agreement

reservations to be registered with appropriate multinational body. Refer to AFI 60-

106, International Military Standardization (IMS) Program, for further information.

5.4.17. Modular Open System Approach. The Modular Open System Approach is used to

design and development modular, interoperable systems that allow components to be added,

modified, replaced, removed, and supported by different vendors throughout each system’s life

cycle. The PM applies the Modular Open System Approach and Open Technology

Development wherever feasible. The Chief Engineer uses the technical architecture and

market research of potential technologies and sources of supply to craft an open system

approach that maximizes technology reuse and system interoperability, and that reduces

dependency on proprietary data and total life cycle costs. Refer to DoDI 5000.88 for more

information.

5.4.18. Operational Energy. The Chief Engineer incorporates energy demand in the system

trade space along with other performance issues to support informed decision-making to

respond to the threshold and objective values of the Energy KPP for the program. The Chief

Engineer, in support of the PM, will identify opportunities to reduce energy supportability and

demand.

5.4.19. Packaging, Handling, Storage and Transportation (PHS&T). The PM, with the support

of the Chief Engineer and PSM, identifies PHS&T requirements based on operational

capabilities and life cycle cost considerations. See DoDI 4140.01, DoDM 4140.01 Vol. 2,

AFPD 24-6, Distribution and Traffic Management, and DAFI 24-602 Vol. 2, Cargo

Movement, for weapon systems PHS&T; a MIL-STD-2073-1E, Department of Defense

Standard Practice for Military Packaging, and FAR Subpart 47.2.

5.4.20. Producibility, Quality & Manufacturing Readiness. This design consideration is

closely linked to the technology readiness assessment process, reliability and maintainability,

product and system integrity, and the deficiency reporting process. SAE-AS6500,

Manufacturing Management Program, provides industry-accepted standards/criteria for

implementing manufacturing management practices on DoD programs. Refer to MIL-HDBK-

896A and the Manufacturing Management Program Guide for more information.

5.4.20.1. The PM and Chief Engineer ensure that the contractor establishes a quality

management system to ensure product quality and consider including achievement of

product quality objectives in evaluations of contractor performance. Refer to DAFI 63-

145.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 87

5.4.20.2. The PM conducts assessments of and addresses manufacturing readiness at

formal technical and milestone reviews. Refer to the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level

(MRL) Deskbook for more information.

5.4.21. Reliability and Maintainability Engineering. The Chief Engineer and PSM, in support

of the PM, develops a reliability and maintainability program using an appropriate strategy to

ensure reliability and maintainability requirements are understood, designed, produced,

maintained, and improved. Refer to DoD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and

Maintainability and the DoD Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Cost Rationale

Report Manual; Government Electronics and Information Technology Association GEIA-

STD-0009, Reliability Program Standard for Systems Design, Development, and

Manufacturing; and SAE TA-HB-0009A, Reliability Program Handbook for additional

information. The Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Cost (RAM-C) Report

documents the rationale behind the development and balancing of sustainment requirements.

5.4.21.1. The PM will emphasize key reliability practices when planning and executing.

(T-1)

5.4.21.1.1. The PM conducts an analysis of the lead and using command(s) reliability

and maintainability requirements and flow them into the system specification and

appropriate contractual requirements. (T-1)

5.4.21.1.2. The PM will leverage reliability engineering early. (T-1)

5.4.21.1.3. The PM will establish realistic reliability requirements. (T-1)

5.4.21.1.4. The PM will employ reliability engineering activities to improve a system’s

design throughout development. (T-1)

5.4.21.2. The PM includes a RAM-C Report in the SEP at Milestone A, updates it to

support the RFP pre-release review at Milestones B and C, and documents the reliability

growth strategy with reliability growth curve in the SEP in accordance with DoDI 5000.88.

5.4.21.3. The PM documents the reliability growth curve and associated verification

methods for RAM-C requirements in the TEMP.

5.4.21.4. Post-Milestone C. The PM reviews maintenance data documentation, deficiency

reports, and modification proposals to determine if overall system reliability and

maintainability is affected and may require product improvement. This review should

occur for modifications, mishaps, or as part of LCSP updates and involve the lead

command, applicable product support teams, and supply chain management teams to

ensure deficiencies are identified and corrected.

5.4.21.5. The PM ensures Reliability Centered Maintenance Analysis or similar data-

driven analysis processes are employed throughout the life cycle to determine proper

balance of planned and unplanned maintenance, and to establish effective failure

management strategies. See DoD 4151.22-M, Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM),

for more details.

5.4.21.5.1. The PM applies Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) to improve

the reliability and maintenance effectiveness of DoD systems and components. See

DoDI 4151.22 for more details.

88 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.21.5.2. The PM includes CBM+ in the selection of maintenance concepts,

technologies, and processes for all new weapon systems, equipment, and materiel

programs based on readiness requirements, life cycle cost goals, and RCM-based

functional analysis.

5.4.21.5.3. The PM implements CBM+ on existing programs where technically

feasible and beneficial.

5.4.22. SEEK EAGLE Certification. Aircraft program managers provide SEEK EAGLE

certifications to assure the safe and acceptable carriage and release (employment and jettison),

safe escape, and ballistics accuracy (when applicable) for all stores in specified loading

configurations on AF and FMS aircraft. The term “store” means any device (1) intended for

external or internal carriage, (2) mounted at aircraft suspension point locations, and (3) which

may or may not be intended for release from the aircraft. SEEK EAGLE certifications are

based on engineering analyses, computer modeling and simulations, ground testing and flight

testing. Use this certification data to update and verify the accuracy of operational flight

programs and TOs. The AF SEEK EAGLE Office is the center of expertise for aircraft-stores

compatibility activities. SAF/AQ has designated the SEEK EAGLE Office as the primary

source for SEEK EAGLE certification technical support and it is the central repository for

SEEK EAGLE data. Additional information on the overall SEEK EAGLE process, including

detailed procedures on requesting support from the AF SEEK EAGLE Office, memorandum

of agreement (MOA) templates, stores certification data package templates, typical funding

source assignments, technical information request forms, and dispute resolution procedures are

in AFPAM 63-129, Chapter 3, “The SEEK EAGLE Process and Resources.”

5.4.22.1. The aircraft program manager, supported by the Chief Engineer, provides SEEK

EAGLE certification of any aircraft-store combination prior to its first use in flight by all

Regular AF, Air National Guard, or AF Reserve operational units or test organizations

unless waived by the MDA.

5.4.22.1.1. Unless waived by the PEO, the aircraft PM uses the Air Force SEEK

EAGLE Office’s engineering services, facilities, and capabilities as the primary

technical resources to support SEEK EAGLE certifications. The PM secures AF SEEK

EAGLE Office support by negotiating a MOA which is tailored to the unique

operational capability requirements of the program and the AF SEEK EAGLE Office

capabilities to meet those requirements. For developmental aircraft, the MOA is signed

no later than Milestone B unless waived by the MDA and updated by the end of

Engineering and Manufacturing Development. The MOA remains in effect for the life

of the program and be modified as required. Information on the MOA process can be

found in AFPAM 63-129. If the PEO waives use of the AF SEEK EAGLE Office, the

PM will notify the AF SEEK EAGLE Office when the waiver is granted and provide

all program office-developed certification data to the AF SEEK EAGLE Office central

data repository. (T-2)

5.4.22.1.2. Air Combat Command, as the lead command and requirements owner in

collaboration with AF Global Strike Command and the AF SEEK EAGLE Office

Director, is the final authority for assigning SEEK EAGLE Request Priority.

Disagreements are resolved at the lowest level practical. When resolution cannot be

reached in a timely manner, SAF/AQP will resolve the issue.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 89

5.4.22.1.3. The aircraft or store program of record in development is responsible for

all costs associated with SEEK EAGLE requirements, including stores needed for flight

testing. The Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office is responsible for costs to execute SEEK

EAGLE support for USAF programs in production and to provide a baseline capacity

of technical expertise, modeling, and simulation tools, known flight and wind tunnel

testing, and SEEK EAGLE resources available for USAF programs. It is the

responsibility of the aircraft or store manager to fund all other activities such as TO

publication and operational flight program updates. See AFPAM 63-129 for additional

information.

5.4.22.1.4. The aircraft PM applies the DoD standardized procedures in MIL-HDBK-

1763, Aircraft/Stores Compatibility: Systems Engineering Data Requirements and Test

Procedures, for the certification of stores on aircraft; waivable by the MDA. MIL-

HDBK-244A, Guide to Aircraft/Stores Compatibility, provides guidance on evaluating

the safety and acceptability of store-aircraft combinations.

5.4.22.2. Store PMs produce a SEEK EAGLE store certification data package for each

store that they manage and provide a copy of the package to the aircraft PM and the AF

SEEK EAGLE Office. (T-2) AF Nuclear Weapons Center (AFNWC) provides statements

of nuclear compatibility and certification completion to the SEEK EAGLE office. (T-1)

See the Store Certification Data Package Template at Attachment 5 of AFPAM 63-129. In

addition, store PMs:

5.4.22.2.1. Provide an updated certification data package prior to releasing a new or

modified store for test or operation.

5.4.22.2.2. Support the aircraft PMs aircraft-store combination SEEK EAGLE

certification.

5.4.22.2.3. Notify the lead and using commands, aircraft PM, and AF SEEK EAGLE

Office of store service life changes that require re-certification.

5.4.22.3. Aircraft operators and crew do not load or use any store on an aircraft that does

not have a specific SEEK EAGLE certification for that loading location from the aircraft

program manager. (T-1) Contact the program manager and the AF SEEK EAGLE Office

to request the required SEEK EAGLE certification. See AFPAM 63-129 for additional

procedures and resources for SEEK EAGLE Requests.

5.4.22.4. SEEK EAGLE certifications for unique FMS aircraft-stores combinations may

be requested by international customers through the AF Security Assistance and

Cooperation (AFSAC) Directorate and may be fulfilled on a negotiated, reimbursable

basis. See AFPAM 63-129 for additional procedures and resources for FMS SEEK

EAGLE Requests.

5.4.22.5. Analyses and data from the SEEK EAGLE certification can support the aircraft’s

airworthiness approval, as required by DAFI 62-601. PMs should integrate SEEK EAGLE

engineering analysis and testing activities with DAF airworthiness processes to achieve

cost and schedule savings.

5.4.23. Software Engineering. System engineering manages system development and

sustainment by addressing each system as having three major components: hardware, software,

90 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

and human. The PM ensures key software focus areas are addressed throughout the life cycle.

For focus areas and software best practices refer to the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Strategy

Guide, the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps Fundamentals, and the DoD Enterprise DevSecOps

Reference Design (https://dodcio.defense.gov/library/). Focus areas can be tailored and

incorporated in the System Engineering Plan, or Acquisition Strategy. The PM ensures that

software assurance and software safety principles are addressed throughout the life cycle,

documented in the PPP, DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113, and applies open systems architecture

principles to software to the maximum extent practicable. Refer to the Joint Software Systems

Safety Engineering Handbook, MIL-STD-882E and the DoD SWAP report

(https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/01/2002126690/-1/-

1/0/SWAP%20EXECUTIVE%20SUMMARY.PDF) for more information. If the Software

Resources Data Report is required, the PM uses the Cost and Software Data Reporting system

to submit the report. (T-0) Refer to DoDI 5000.73 for more information.

5.4.24. Spectrum Management. Spectrum management is the planning, coordinating, and

managing of the joint use of the electromagnetic spectrum through operational, engineering,

and administrative procedures. The PM of systems using or impacting the electromagnetic

spectrum is responsible for obtaining spectrum certification to comply with national and

international laws as well as established treaties. Reference DoDI 4630.09, Communications

Waveform Management and Standardization, DoDI 4650.01, Policy and Procedures for

Management and Use of the Electromagnetic Spectrum, DAFI 17-220, Spectrum Management,

for additional information and definitions of spectrum management terms.

5.4.24.1. The PM addresses spectrum supportability and requirements as early as possible

in the acquisition life cycle to mitigate programmatic risk but no later than Milestone B.

5.4.24.2. The PM ensures system documents (including contract deliverables) properly

address characteristics required by the equipment spectrum certification process described

in AFI 17-220.

5.4.24.3. The Chief Engineer, in support of the PM, ensures electronic and electrical

systems, subsystems, and equipment, including ordnance, procured for U.S. forces are

mutually compatible in the operational electromagnetic environment in accordance with

DoDI 3222.03, DoD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program. (T-0)

5.4.25. Standardization. Refer to AFI 60-101. The PM utilizes non-governmental consensus

standards, if available, when identifying compliance documents in contracts. The Defense

Standardization Council supports development of non-government consensus standards with

DoD participation and use of those standards that meet DoD’s requirements; these documents

can enable program office success. This is the case with the following standards mentioned

previously: EIA-649-1, IEEE-15288.1, IEEE-15288.2, and SAE-AS6500.

5.4.26. Supportability. See Chapter 7.

5.4.27. System Survivability & Susceptibility. System survivability includes protection from

kinetic and non-kinetic fires, initial nuclear effects (including electromagnetic pulse),

chemical, biological, and radiological contamination, cyber-attacks, and natural environments

(i.e., solar flares, extreme temperatures, salt water, etc.). Survivability requirements apply to

all programs including those utilizing commercial off the shelf or non-developmental item.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 91

5.4.27.1. The PM addresses system survivability requirements and performance attributes

across the life cycle.

5.4.27.2. The PM ensures system survivability design, test, and analysis activities are

based on a system operations concept and threat assessments.

5.4.27.3. The PM implements a Hardness Maintenance and Hardness Surveillance

program if a system requires hardening to survive against nuclear, ballistic, chemical,

biological, high-power microwave, or laser threats. The program considers High Altitude

Electromagnetic Pulse protection of mission-essential Nuclear Command, Control,

Communications (NC3) systems. Methods are applied to verify that the High-Altitude

Electromagnetic Pulse protection for the system and facility integration meets requirements

listed in survivability policy. Procedures and plans should include materials, methods, and

devices required to design, construct, test, and maintain High Altitude Electromagnetic

Pulse protection from initial conception to deactivation of a fixed facility.

5.4.27.4. The PM implements survivability policy and guidance found in:

5.4.27.4.1. Section 141 of Public Law 108-375, Development of Deployable Systems

to Include Consideration of Force Protection in Asymmetric Threat Environment.

5.4.27.4.2. 10 USC Section 4142, Major systems and munitions programs:

survivability testing and lethality testing required before full-scale production.

5.4.27.4.3. Allied Engineering Publication (AEP)-7, Chemical, Biological,

Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Contamination Survivability Factors in the Design,

Testing and Acceptance of Military Equipment.

5.4.27.4.4. MIL-STD 3056, Design Criteria for Chemical, Biological, and

Radiological System Contamination Survivability.

5.4.27.4.5. 50 USC Section 1522, Conduct of Chemical and Biological Defense

Program.

5.4.27.4.6. DoDI 3150.09.

5.4.27.4.7. DoDI 3222.03.

5.4.27.4.8. AFI 10-2607, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear

Survivability.

5.4.27.4.9. MIL-HDBK-237C, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects and Spectrum

Certification Guidance for the Acquisition Process.

5.4.27.4.10. MIL-STD-188-125-1, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection

for Ground-Based C41 Facilities Performing Critical, Time Urgent Missions.

5.4.27.4.11. MIL-STD- 188-125-2, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection

for Transportable Systems.

5.4.27.4.12. MIL-STD-3023, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection for

Military Aircraft.

92 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

5.4.27.4.13. MIL-HDBK-423, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP)

Protection for Fixed and Transportable Ground – Based C4 1 Facilities – Volume 1 –

Fixed Facilities.

5.4.27.5. Meteorological Analysis. Meteorological analysis is used to identify and

mitigate the impacts of the natural environment, to include the space environment, on a

system’s performance and employment for the life cycle of any weather-sensitive programs

or basing activities. The PM and Chief Engineer, in collaboration with the implementing

command’s designated meteorologists, ensure the identification and documentation of a

system’s operational requirements for weather products and services, and assessment of

weather-related risk during all phases of the life cycle, as appropriate.

5.4.28. Program Protection. See Chapter 6.

5.4.29. Hardware and Software Assurance. See Chapter 6.

5.4.30. Criticality of Program, Components, and Information. See Chapter 6.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 93

Chapter 6

PROGRAM PROTECTION

6.1. Program Protection Overview. Program protection is a multi-functional activity to plan for

and integrate holistic security policies and practices for DAF programs throughout their life cycles.

Note: Use of the term programs in this chapter is not meant to limit application to acquisition

category programs, it may be applied to systems, sub-systems, projects, or other acquisition

activities.

6.1.1. Program protection helps ensure that all programs, regardless of pathway or

categorization, consider life cycle risk management and execute to protect from a spectrum of

threats in order to ensure battlefield advantage and mission assurance, including cyber-related

threats, counterfeit hardware or software components, information exfiltration, unauthorized

or indiscriminate information disclosure, and tampering efforts should components fall outside

positive physical control. Security elements and considerations are included and consistent

across a program’s documentation (e.g., SEP, TEMP, LCSP). See the DAF Systems Security

Engineering Cyber Guidebook, for additional information and guidance.

6.1.2. Security-related requirements are fully derived for the system and for supporting

infrastructure. Security-related requirements are integrated into overall requirements,

incorporated into the system’s design through systems security engineering, and thoroughly

tested from a mission assurance perspective.

6.1.3. Security-related requirements are included in the RFP and contract language, and in

source selection criteria, where appropriate. Requirements should include security

considerations at prime and subcontractor locations, proper security surrounding development

networks as well as evidence for a secure supply chain (e.g., statistical part inspections, facility

inspection results, network certifications).

6.1.4. Completed PPPs are included in the Systems Engineering Plan then transferred to the

LCSP when a program transitions into the O&M phase. The PM and PSM ensure Product

Support Providers identified in the LCSP are fully informed of their responsibilities.

6.1.5. Additional guidance and detailed requirements are provided in DoDI 5000.83_DAFI

63-113.

6.2. Program Protection Planning. The PM ensures critical program information and mission-

critical functions and components are protected to keep technological advantages in and malicious

content out.

6.2.1. The PPP is approved by the MDA. Refer to DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113 for more

information on PPP preparation and approval. The Chief Engineer completes a PPP and the

PM ensures that it is maintained throughout the life cycle of the program. (T-0) When a

technology development activity transfers to a program or the system has a major modification,

the PM becomes responsible for security impacts of the change and documents them in their

program’s PPP. (T-0) An approved Program Protection Plan is also included as supporting

documentation in the attachment section of the Information Support Plan.

6.2.1.1. PPP requirements for modifications can be satisfied by updating or annexing the

existing plan, or by creating a separate PPP for the modification.

94 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

6.2.1.2. The PM creates and records an audit and inspection plan periodically as part of

the PPP. PM will notify the MDA or decision authority, and appropriate Approving

Official or Authorizing Official, of any findings or updates that involve significant high

risks that cannot be reasonably addressed through technical mitigation, countermeasures,

or risk management procedures and document them in the PPP. (T-0) The PPP outlines

program implementation and should be updated as needed. As a best practice, review the

PPP annually or congruent with LCSP updates.

6.2.2. NSS as defined in 44 USC 3552(b)(6), 44 USC 3553(e)(2) and 44 USC 3553(e)(3).

Program protection and cybersecurity is emphasized in EO 14028, Improving the Nation’s

Cybersecurity, and National Security Memorandum 8 on Improving the Cybersecurity of

National Security, Department of Defense, and Intelligence Community Systems. These

documents clarify NSS criteria for making NSS determination. Program managers should start

their NSS assessment process with the assumption that they are an NSS, then through analysis

and identification determine that they are not an NSS. This will allow them to control and

manage design and program requirements of their system or program early in the program

planning process. This approach will also prevent the reactive and more expensive process of

having to bolt-on system security after system design and implementation have started and

program budgets have been baselined to support NSS implementation into their system or

program. A new item that is added to program protection is NSS determination using the NSS

determination checklist. In the interim, the checklist at Figure A4.1 should be used and

submitted for review, approval, and tracking in accordance with Attachment 4.

6.3. Communications Security (COMSEC).

6.3.1. COMSEC countermeasures are developed, implemented, and managed consistent with

DoDI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program; DoDI 8500.01; DoDI 8520.03; 32 CFR,

Part 117, National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM); DoDM

5220.32, Volume 1, National Industrial Security Program: Industrial Security Procedures for

Government Activities; DoDM 5220.32, Volume 2; DAFI 16-1401, Information Protection

Program; and DoDM 5220.22V2_AFMAN16-1406V2, National Industrial Security

Program: Industrial Security Procedures for Government Activities.

6.3.2. PMs are required to coordinate and receive approval from AFLCMC/HNC prior to any

COMSEC/CCI development, acquisition, modernization, or sustainment. Non-compliance

will be reported to the PEO for Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence, and

Networks Directorate (AFLCMC/HN), with a copy of the final action to the SAF/AQ Military

Deputy and the SAF/SQ Military Deputy (for space systems and programs), within 30 days.

6.4. Anti-Tamper.

6.4.1. The PEO identifies an Anti-Tamper Lead to coordinate with the AF Anti-Tamper

Service Lead (SAF/AQL and SAF/SQXL for space systems and programs) and to guide

programs through the anti-tamper planning process. Reference DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113

for more information.

6.4.2. The PM includes anti-tamper plans and anti-tamper waivers as an appendix in the PPP.

6.4.3. The PM implements anti-tamper countermeasures, where appropriate, consistent with

DoDI 2010.06, DoDI 5200.39, DoDI 5200.44, 32 CFR, Part 117, DoDM 5220.32 V1 and

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 95

DoDM 5220.32 V2. When applying DoD horizontal protection guidance, programs should

consider how they implement anti-tampering.

6.5. Operations Security (OPSEC).

6.5.1. The PM ensures OPSEC is planned for and addressed during all acquisition phases. The

goal of OPSEC is to protect proprietary information; controlled unclassified information;

intellectual property; controlled technical information and/or classified information. This plan

also defines indicators or operational profiles throughout the acquisition life cycle. An OPSEC

plan can be part of the countermeasures listed in the PPP or a separate document. It is the

responsibility of the PM to determine what measures are essential to protect critical and

Sensitive information.

6.5.2. The PM should identify OPSEC measures in the acquisition/ systems requirements

documents when possible and passed to resulting solicitations and contracts. Refer to DoDM

5205.02, DoD Operations Security (OPSEC) Program Manual, and AFI 10-701, Operations

Security (OPSEC), for more information.

6.6. Counterintelligence. In accordance with DoDI 5200.44, the PM will request

counterintelligence (CI) assessments of supplier threats to critical components through the

implementing command’s TSN’s focal point. PMs also coordinate with the implementing

command’s intelligence focal point to determine the need for counterintelligence. If required, the

PM collaborates with the applicable AF Office of Special Investigation field detachment or

MAJCOM-supporting OSI Regional office regarding counterintelligence options and support for

the life cycle of the system or technology, to include support to the development of a supporting

Counterintelligence Support Plan to the PPP.

6.7. Foreign Intelligence. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security

(USD(I&S)) is responsible to guide collection and direct all-source analysis, in accordance with

DoDI 5200.44, Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and Networks.

PM's should leverage their Director of Intelligence (DOI) or their intelligence functional as the

fusion point for Foreign Intelligence (FI) threat assessment products with intent to leverage a

common publication platform to serve as a SCRM central repository.

6.8. System Security Engineering. An element of systems engineering that applies scientific

and engineering principles to identify security vulnerabilities and minimize or contain risks

associated with these vulnerabilities. The PM, in collaboration with the Chief Engineer, tailors

the system engineering technical and management processes to address security related

vulnerabilities and protection measures. See the DAF Systems Security Engineering Cyber

Guidebook (https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-

af/USAF/ep/globalTab.do?channelPageId=sE3494DD05DD7CCA3015DEBE7E0B50426).

6.9. Trusted Systems and Networks. The PM ensures that mission critical functions and critical

components are identified and properly documented in the PPP, with risk assessment and

mitigation. In accordance with DoDI 5200.44, responsibilities extend throughout the life cycle

and the PM re-evaluates critical components when there are program changes in system design,

modifications, or supply chain changes including spare or replacement parts. Note: Human-in-

loop system of systems are generally evolving over time to automate certain workflow operations.

These automated tasks to support certain mission essential functions may become mission critical

functions due to lack of alternative means.

96 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

6.10. Acquisition Security. Acquisition Security is a key element of program protection for the

planning and integration of all security disciplines and other defensive methods into the acquisition

process to protect weapons systems and related sensitive technology, technical information such

as research data with military applications, and support systems from foreign intelligence

collection, unauthorized disclosure, sabotage, theft, or damage throughout a system’s life cycle.

Reference DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113 for additional guidance and detailed requirements.

6.11. Cybersecurity. Cybersecurity is the prevention of damage to, protection of, and restoration

of computers, electronic communications systems, electronic communications services, wire

communication, and electronic communication, including information contained therein, to ensure

its availability, integrity, authentication, confidentiality, and nonrepudiation. See DoDI 8500.01,

DoDI 8510.01, AFPD 17-1, AFI 17-130, AFPD 14-4, AFI 17-101 and AFMAN 14-403 for more

information.

6.11.1. The PM is responsible for ensuring programs develop and implement a Cybersecurity

Strategy consistent with DoDI 5000.85, DoDI 5000.90, DoDI 8500.01, DoDI 8510.01, and

include the Cybersecurity Strategy as an appendix to the PPP throughout the system life cycle.

The Cybersecurity Strategy is approved by the applicable CIO (DAF and/or DoD), or Chief

ISR Information Officer, depending on the type of program, prior to milestone decisions or

contract awards and is required for every milestone review beginning at Milestone A.

6.11.2. Cyber T&E. Cyber T&E must be included in program TEMP. The TEMP should

build upon the program Cybersecurity Strategy and provide detailed T&E activities to support

cyber-T&E requirements. See DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103 for more information on cyber-

T&E.

6.12. Nuclear Systems Security. Refer to DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113 for requirements on this

topic.

6.13. Physical Security. The PM ensures that program-related facilities (government, including

government owned, contractor operated, and contractor) have physical security attributes

commensurate with program information and system characteristics, to include controlled

unclassified information, consistent with DoDI 5200.08, Security of DoD Installations and

Resources and the DoD Physical Security Review Board (PSRB); DoDI 5205.11; DoDM5200.01

V3_DAFMAN16-1404 V3, Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information;

32 CFR, Part 117; AFMAN 31-101, Vol. 1, Integrated Defense (ID) Planning; AFI 16-701; and

DoDM 5220.22 V2_AFMAN 16-1406 V2. The PM ensures that physical security requirements

are included in RFPs and final contracts, to include adequate provisions for sub-contractors and

program asset protection at DAF-owned industrial facilities.

6.13.1. The PM identifies physical protection standards for weapon system platforms in post-

production, test and government acceptance until the asset is physically removed from the

industrial property.

6.13.2. Minimum protection standards for produced weapon system platforms will meet the

intent of AFMAN 31-101, Vol. 1, unless otherwise identified by the lead command.

6.13.3. When there is reasonable risk to a program or mission from a threat in proximity

caused by the foreign acquisition of land, equipment, or services (e.g., a foreign acquirer

buying solar panel farms or commercial rights close to a DAF test range), the nearest AF OSI

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 97

field unit and the DAF CFIUS office ([email protected]) must

be informed. (T-1)

6.14. Supply Chain Risk Management. Supply chain risk management is the systematic

process for managing risk by identifying, assessing, and mitigating actual or potential threats,

vulnerabilities, and disruptions to the DAF supply chain from beginning to end to ensure mission

effectiveness. Supply chain risk management involves the identification, assessment, and

mitigation of threats to the supply chain as it relates to the life cycle of mission-critical products,

materials, and services. Successful supply chain risk management addresses the broad spectrum of

supply chain risks that have the potential to jeopardize the integrity of assets, compromise IP,

disrupt the flow of crucial goods or services needed for continued DAF operations, or drive

materiel cost increases to the program. Supply chain risk management requires enterprise cross-

functional unity of effort and combined integrated threat-informed analysis between CI and

intelligence presented to the PM across all stages of the acquisition life cycle. See DoDI

5000.83_DAFI 63-113 for more information on supply chain risk management.

6.15. Cyber-Supply Chain Risk Management. Cyber-Supply Chain Risk Management is the

process of identifying, assessing, and responding to risks associated with the distributed and

interconnected nature of information, communications, and operational technology product and

service supply chains. With the increasing threats to DAF assets that expose vulnerabilities of

DAF assets on cyber systems, cyber threats and their mitigations are reviewed and tracked using

open source and reported incidences from intelligence organizations in the DAF with information

of known cyber and TSN threats. Assessments and mitigations are made by DAF experts from

SAF/AQ, SAF/SQ (for space systems and programs), SAF/CN, CROWS, and the TSN COE.

Specific information that applies to program and systems should be documented in the program’s

Cybersecurity Strategy, which is part of the PPP for review and approval.

98 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 7

PRODUCT SUPPORT

7.1. Product Support and Sustainment Planning Overview. Product support is a continuous

and collaborative set of activities that establishes and maintains readiness and the operational

capability of a system, subsystem, or end-item throughout its life cycle. A product support strategy

is built around the integrated product support elements as identified in the DoD PSM Guidebook

to integrate the phases of a system throughout its life cycle. The product support strategy is the

business and technical approach to design, acquire, test and field the product support package to

execute the sustainment strategy. It begins as a broad concept and evolves into a detailed

implementation plan that is documented in the LCSP.

7.1.1. The PM retains overall responsibility for all aspects of the program. The PSM is

accountable to the PM for the execution of all product support needs, to include integrity

programs, within the PM’s scope of responsibilities. The PSM, with support from the

implementing command, develops and implements a comprehensive product support strategy

for each applicable program. For more information on PSM and product support

responsibilities refer to the DoDI 5000.91, Product Support Management for the Adaptive

Acquisition Framework, DoD PSM Guidebook, Integrated Product Support Element

Guidebook, MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis, and 10 USC Section 4324, Life-

Cycle Management and Product Support.

7.1.2. The PSM ensures the appropriate concepts, techniques, and analyses necessary to

ensure achievement of defined product support requirements and objectives are applied. The

PSM is responsible to the PM to ensure that integrated product support objectives are

considered and introduced as early as practical in the life cycle.

7.2. Product Support Business Model. The Product Support Business Model defines the

hierarchical framework in which the planning, development, implementation, management, and

execution of product support for a weapon system component, subsystem, or system platform will

be accomplished over the life cycle. The Product Support Business Model is documented in the

LCSP. It describes the program’s methodology to achieve optimized product support by balancing

weapon system availability with affordable and predictable total ownership cost. The PM has

substantial discretion in implementing the Product Support Business Model by developing

performance-based agreements with warfighter/users, Product Support Integrators, and Product

Support Providers.

7.2.1. Product Support Integrators. The Product Support Integrator is defined as an entity

(within or outside the Federal Government) charged with integrating all sources of product

support, both private and public, defined within the scope of a product support arrangement.

The PSM may have more than one Product Support Integrator supporting the Program.

7.2.2. Product Support Providers. A Product Support Provider is an entity that provides

product support functions. A Product Support Provider may be an entity within the DoD, an

entity within the private sector, or a partnership between such entities.

7.3. Weapon System Sustainment. Weapon System Sustainment is a subset of Readiness and

Operation and Support funding that includes CLS, Contractor Inventory Control Point, Depot

Purchased Equipment Maintenance, Sustaining Engineering, TOs and organic maintenance, repair

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 99

and overhaul. Depot level repairables and consumables for organically managed aircraft and the

Flying Hour Program are excluded from Weapon System Sustainment. Weapon System

Sustainment costs should be balanced with readiness needs and addressed as part of the product

support strategy.

7.4. Centralized Asset Management (CAM). CAM is the management and execution of

sustainment funding for the USAF process owner. AFMC is the designated USAF Weapon System

Sustainment (WSS) Executive Agent. SSC is the designated USSF WSS Executive Agent. Air

National Guard and AF Reserve Command utilize CAM processes and schedules but manage their

own requirements validation and execution of funds.

7.4.1. MAJCOM/FLDCOMs and the PM utilize CAM procedures, meet established

timeframes/suspense, and support associated reviews as documented in AFMAN 63-143,

Centralized Asset Management Procedures.

7.4.2. MAJCOM/FLDCOMs and the PM utilize the CAM IT system of record for defining,

validating, prioritizing, and publishing system sustainment requirements at the depot.

7.4.3. MAJCOM/FLDCOM s and the PM collaborate with HQ AFMC to advocate and ensure

all requirements associated with systems’ support receive equitable consideration under CAM.

7.5. Product Support Strategy. The purpose of the product support strategy is to outline the

program’s overarching strategy to satisfy product support requirements. All programs, regardless

of acquisition pathway, are required to develop and implement a comprehensive product support

strategy in support of the PM’s integrated program objectives. The product support strategy

documented in the LSCP is based upon a best value selection among organic and commercial

support alternatives as validated through the PS-BCA process and seeks to minimize life cycle

costs.

7.5.1. Product support considerations begin prior to Milestone A (or equivalent) with early

requirements determination and continue through system design, development, operational

use, retirement, and disposal. The Program Manager, in conjunction with the Product Support

Manager, should assess system design, design changes, integrated digital environments,

DevSecOps approaches and sustainment strategies to identify factors impacting future

Operating and Support costs throughout these phases and develop strategies for reducing cost

growth on the program.

7.5.2. Performance based life cycle product support or Performance Based Logistics strategies

are to be employed when analysis indicates that they can effectively reduce cost and improve

performance.

7.5.3. The PSM adjusts performance requirements and resource allocations across Product

Support Integrators and Product Support Providers as needed to implement the product support

strategy. The PSM is responsible for optimizing product support during the development,

implementation, sustainment and subsequent revalidation of the product support strategy.

7.6. Product Support Business Case Analysis. The PSM performs and documents the best

value comparisons in a PS-BCA, in support of the PMs integrated program objectives, to validate

the product support strategy is cost effective, financially feasible, optimizes system readiness and

manages risk, in accordance with 10 USC Section 4324.

100 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

7.6.1. The PS-BCA varies in size, scope, and level of detail depending on many factors, such

as fleet size, projected program life cycle, and depot statutory requirements. The PS-BCA uses

a structured methodology to aid decision making by identifying and comparing alternatives by

examining the mission and business impacts (both financial and non- financial), risks, and

sensitivities. In order to properly size and scope the PS-BCA, the PSM and PM must

completely understand the appropriate level of analysis required to support the MDA’s

decision making and tailor the PS-BCA accordingly.

7.6.2. The PS-BCA is supported by a team comprised of program management, life cycle

logistics, financial management, cost estimation, small business, supply chain, and depot

sustainment personnel who can assist the PSM in completing the PS-BCA. The PSM conducts

the PS-BCA using government personnel to the maximum extent possible. Refer to AFI 65-

501, Economic Analysis, DAFPAM 63-123, Product Support Business Case Analysis, and the

DoD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook for more information on PS-BCA.

7.6.3. MCA programs at the ACAT I and ACAT II levels are required to accomplish a PS-

BCA. For ACAT III programs, the MDA has the discretion to determine whether to conduct

a PS-BCA; however, the MDA ensures rationale for not conducting PS-BCA is documented

in the LCSP.

7.6.3.1. MTA programs that are “covered systems” (i.e., exceed the MDAP threshold) are

required to accomplish a PS-BCA. The specific timing and content requirements are highly

tailorable based on the specific needs of the program. Once the program transitions out of

the MTA pathway, the program uses this PS-BCA as the baseline for further analysis or

revalidation as appropriate.

7.6.3.2. Non-MCA programs and MTAs that are not covered systems are not required to

accomplish a PS-BCA as described in the section.

7.6.4. The PS-BCA is an annex to the LCSP completed by the PM and initiated prior to

Milestone B to support IP need analysis and completed by Milestone C (or equivalent). The

PS-BCA is initiated and updated to justify the product support approach defined in the LCSP.

7.6.5. The PSM revalidates the PS-BCA at a minimum of every five years from the completion

or revalidation date. For existing programs that are beyond Milestone-C and do not have a PS-

BCA, the PSM is not required to conduct a PS-BCA unless a change to the product support

strategy is being considered. The PSM documents the current product support strategy is

affordable and effective, obtains SAF/AQD approval, in coordination with SAF/SQS

coordination (for space systems and programs) for ACAT I and IA programs, and includes this

determination as an annex to the LCSP.

7.6.6. SAF/AQD is the delegated approval authority for ACAT I and MTA (covered systems)

PS-BCA and revalidations. The MDA is the approval authority for all other PS-BCAs.

7.6.7. The PSM is responsible to maintain a complete history of PS-BCA over the course of

the system life cycle to track decisions and understand how real-world operations cause

program impacts.

7.7. Life Cycle Sustainment Plan. The LCSP is the program’s product support execution plan

for ensuring the system’s product support strategy optimizes the sustainment KPPs and KSAs

while controlling overall program ownership costs. The LCSP is integrated across the system life

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 101

cycle into strategies, planning, implementation, development, production, fielding, support,

sustainment and disposal. The LCSP streamlines, consolidates, and makes visible to leadership

all aspects of the program’s product support strategy.

7.7.1. The PM develops a LCSP for all programs, regardless of acquisition pathway. See

paragraph 7.7.8 for additional requirements.

7.7.1.1. MCA programs develop, update, and obtain approval of LCSPs for Milestone A,

B, C, Full Rate Production and every five years after IOC until system disposal.

7.7.1.2. MCA programs in the Operations and Support phase are required to have a LCSP

unless the program’s LCSP was approved prior to March 2013 and the MDA authority has

been delegated to the SAE or below. The PM performs the appropriate level of analysis

necessary to develop the product support strategy and support each milestone decision.

7.7.1.3. Non-MCA programs have greater flexibility to determine the appropriate timing

for LCSP development, approval, and reviews. Non-MCA programs work with their

Decision Authority to determine LCSP tailoring strategies, completion dates and update

cycles.

7.7.1.4. The implementing command may also designate other efforts requiring the

development of a LCSP.

7.7.1.5. The PM performs the appropriate level of analysis necessary to develop the

product support strategy and support each milestone decision.

7.7.2. The PM updates the LCSP to reflect changes in the product support strategy, at major

milestone reviews (or equivalent decision points for applicable pathways), or at five year

intervals, whichever comes first.

7.7.2.1. The PM should develop and coordinate the LCSP in accordance with the OSD

approved outline. Tailoring strategies ensure the information and coordination

requirements of the LCSP are addressed in any integrated documentation.

7.7.2.2. Non-MCA programs use the OSD approved outline as a starting point for LCSP

development. However, tailoring and adding content may be necessary for the program to

develop an LCSP that sufficiently describes the program’s product support strategy.

7.7.3. LCSPs pertaining to covered systems are subject to additional requirements (see 10

USC Section 4324). (T-0)

7.7.3.1. Covered systems are defined as MDAPs and MTAs that are estimated to require

a total expenditure that exceeds the MDAP threshold. (T-0)

7.7.3.2. Prior to Milestone B (or the equivalent), covered systems are required to have a

LCSP that has been approved by the MDA. (T-0)

7.7.3.3. PSMs will ensure the LCSP for a covered system includes the following items:

7.7.3.3.1. A comprehensive product support strategy. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.2. Performance goals, including key performance parameters for sustainment,

key system attributes, and other appropriate metrics. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.3. An approved life cycle cost estimate. (T-0)

102 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

7.7.3.3.4. Affordability constraints and key cost factors that could affect the operating

and support costs. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.5. Sustainment risks and proposed mitigation plans for such risks. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.6. Engineering and design considerations that support cost-effective

sustainment. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.7. A technical data and intellectual property management plan for product

support. (T-0)

7.7.3.3.8. Major maintenance and overhaul requirements that will be required during

the life cycle. (T-0)

7.7.4. LCSP Approval and Concurrence.

7.7.4.1. For MCA programs, prior to IOC, ASD(S) is the approval authority for LCSPs on

all ACAT ID, IAM, and USD(A&S)-designated special interest programs, and the MDA

is the approval authority for all other LCSPs.

7.7.4.2. For MCA programs, after IOC, SAF/AQD (SAF/SQS, in coordination with

SAF/AQD, for space systems and programs) is the delegated approval authority for LCSP

on all ACAT I programs, and the MDA is the approval authority for all other LCSPs.

7.7.4.3. For MCA programs, the implementing command provides concurrence on the

LCSP as the Sustainment Command. Authority to provide concurrence may be delegated

to the appropriate level.

7.7.4.4. For non-MCA programs, the Decision Authority approves the LCSP.

7.7.5. LCSP Annexes. The PM is responsible for ensuring the following annexes are included

in the LCSP:

7.7.5.1. PS-BCA or other analyses used to develop the product support strategy

documented in the LCSP.

7.7.5.2. Engine Life Cycle Management Plan.

7.7.5.3. Core Logistics Analysis.

7.7.5.4. Preservation and Storage of Unique Tooling Plan (MDAP only).

7.7.5.5. IP Strategy (Milestone B, C, and subsequent LCSP updates, including major

modification programs).

7.7.5.6. DSOR Determination(s).

7.7.5.7. Independent Logistics Assessment (ILA) (MDAP Only).

7.7.5.8. PPP (O&S phase only; included in SEP for pre-O&S programs).

7.7.5.9. IUID Implementation Plan after milestone C approval.

7.7.5.10. Demilitarization Plans.

7.7.5.11. Replaced System Support Plan.

7.7.5.12. Partnership Agreements.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 103

7.7.5.13. TO Life Cycle Management Plan and TO Life Cycle Verification Plan.

7.7.5.14. Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation (O&S

phase only; included in SEP for pre-O&S programs).

7.7.6. System modifications/upgrades may be added as a stand-alone annex to the platform

LCSP. The annex addresses all standard LCSP requirements for that specific

modification/upgrade. Upon completion of the modification/upgrade, the platform LCSP is

updated to incorporate the changes. Each modification or upgrade should have a separate

annex to the LCSP. See Chapter 9 for more information.

7.7.7. For more information on the LCSP refer to the DoD PSM Guidebook and the Integrated

Product Support Element Guidebook.

7.7.8. LCSPs pertaining to covered systems are subject to additional requirements (see 10

USC Section 4324). (T-0)

7.7.8.1. Covered systems are defined as MDAPs and MTAs that are estimated to require

a total expenditure that exceeds the MDAP threshold. (T-0)

7.7.8.2. Prior to Milestone B (or the equivalent), covered systems are required to have a

LCSP that has been approved by the MDA. (T-0)

7.7.8.3. PSMs will ensure the LCSP for a covered system includes the following items:

7.7.8.3.1. A comprehensive product support strategy. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.2. Performance goals, including KPPs for sustainment, KSAs, and other

appropriate metrics. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.3. An approved life cycle cost estimate. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.4. Affordability constraints and key cost factors that could affect the operating

and support costs. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.5. Sustainment risks and proposed mitigation plans for such risks. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.6. Engineering and design considerations that support cost-effective

sustainment. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.7. A technical data and IP management plan for product support. (T-0)

7.7.8.3.8. Major maintenance and overhaul requirements that will be required during

the life cycle. (T-0)

7.8. Materiel Fielding. Materiel fielding is the process by which DAF systems and equipment

are delivered to and put into service by operational units in the field.

7.8.1. The PM develops and documents materiel fielding plans (MFP) starting at Milestone B

and through the production and deployment phase. The PM coordinates materiel fielding

schedules and plans with the lead or using command(s) and other stakeholder organizations

interfacing with, or providing support (e.g., training) for the materiel being developed. It is at

the PM’s discretion how they document MFPs; they may be a stand-alone document known as

a MFP, an annex to the program Acquisition Strategy or LCSP, or embedded within the

Acquisition Strategy or LCSP.

104 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

7.8.2. At Milestone C and all subsequent production decision reviews, the PM updates the

MFPs to reflect the materiel fielding-related requirements, or any changes in the user’s

system/product delivery and acceptance criteria, the user’s operational/mission employment

and the user’s requirements to support operator and maintenance training (e.g., Required

Assets Available), IOC, and FOC. MFPs address levels of maintenance, sources of repair,

sustainment partnering relationships, source of supply, support equipment, training, and use of

interim contractor support (ICS) or contractor logistics.

7.8.3. Consult DAFPAM 63-128 for additional guidance and information related to the

materiel fielding process.

7.9. Product Support and Logistics Assessments.

7.9.1. Logistics Health Assessments. In order to self-inspect and reduce product support risk

for all programs, the PM periodically assess program product support planning and

performance using the Logistics Health Assessments assessment tool. PEOs determine the

frequency of the periodic assessment.

7.9.2. Independent Logistics Assessments. PEOs are responsible for ensuring ILAs are

conducted for all MDAP programs within their portfolios. ILAs are required prior to Milestone

B, C, and the Full Rate Production decision (if more than 4 years after Milestone C). ILAs

results are annexed to the LCSP.

7.9.2.1. PEOs tailor ILAs to program requirements using the Logistics Health Assessment

criteria as a baseline for assessing the program. The ILAs:

7.9.2.1.1. Assesses the adequacy of the product support strategy (to include the core

logistics analyses and establishment of organic capabilities).

7.9.2.1.2. Identifies system design and sustainment planning features that impact

readiness and future O&S costs.

7.9.2.1.3. Identifies changes to system design that could reduce costs, and effective

strategies for managing such costs.

7.9.2.1.4. Specifically assesses O&S costs to identify factors resulting in cost growth

and provide strategies to reduce costs growth.

7.9.2.2. PEOs are delegated authority to charter ILAs teams and ensure they are conducted

by a team comprised of logistics, program management, engineering, financial

management, testing, contracting, small business, program protection, and business experts

who are independent of the program office. “Independent” means a person outside the

program office who is not active nor has recently been active in the management, design,

test, production or product support planning of the program.

7.9.3. Sustainment Reviews. PEOs are responsible for conducting Sustainment Reviews for

all major weapon systems not later than five years after declaration of IOC. (T-0) PEOs will

conduct subsequent Sustainment Reviews every five years thereafter, in coordination with

SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ. (T-0)

7.9.3.1. SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ will direct additional Sustainment Reviews using availability

and reliability thresholds and cost estimates as the basis for the circumstances prompting a

review.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 105

7.9.3.2. The Sustainment Review includes, at minimum, the following elements:

7.9.3.2.1. An independent cost estimate for the remainder of the life cycle of the

program.

7.9.3.2.2. A comparison of actual costs to the amount of funds budgeted and

appropriated in the previous five years with an explanation of the impact on equipment

availability when funding shortfalls exist.

7.9.3.2.3. A comparison between the assumed and the achieved system reliabilities.

7.9.3.2.4. An analysis of the most cost-effective source of repair and maintenance.

7.9.3.2.5. An evaluation of the cost of consumables and depot level repairables.

7.9.3.2.6. An evaluation of the cost of IT, networks, computer hardware, and software

maintenance and upgrades.

7.9.3.2.7. As applicable, an assessment of actual fuel compared to projected fuel

efficiencies as demonstrated in tests or operations.

7.9.3.2.8. As applicable, a comparison of actual manpower requirements to previous

estimates.

7.9.3.2.9. An analysis of the completeness and accuracy of the data being reported in

the military costs systems with a plan to correct deficiencies.

7.9.3.2.10. As applicable, information regarding any decision to restructure the LCSP

for a covered system or any other action that will lead to operating and support cost

growth.

7.9.3.3. PEOs document the results of the Sustainment Review in a memorandum and

forward the memorandum along with supporting documentation to SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ

for approval. The memorandum and supporting documentation are made available to

USD(A&S) within 30 days after completion of the review.

7.9.3.4. If the Sustainment Review identified Critical Operating and Support Cost Growth,

the PEO is required to develop a remediation plan to reduce operating and support costs or

obtain SECAF certification that the cost growth is necessary to meet national security

requirements. (T-0) Critical Operating and Support Cost Growth is defined as:

7.9.3.4.1. If the Sustainment Review Independent Cost Estimate (ICE) is at least 25

percent greater than the estimate documented in the most recent ICE. (T-0)

7.9.3.4.2. If the Sustainment Review ICE is at least 50 percent more than the estimate

documented in the original Baseline Estimate. (T-0)

7.9.3.5. SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ approves all Sustainment Reviews conducted by the PEOs

during the fiscal year. Not later than 30 September of each year, SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ

submits all completed Sustainment Reviews to the congressional defense committees.

(T-0)

7.10. Sustainment Metrics. The PM is responsible for ensuring sustainment metrics are

collected, reported, and analyzed to measure program life cycle sustainment outcomes that satisfy

106 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

the sustainment KPPs and KSAs defined by the user in accordance with the JCIDS Manual.

Sustainment metric calculation information can be found in DAFPAM 63-128.

7.10.1. Materiel availability measures the percentage of the total inventory of a weapon

system’s operational capability (ready for tasking) based on materiel condition for performing

an assigned mission at a given time. Materiel availability information can be found in

DAFPAM 63-128. Operational availability can be used in place of materiel availability in

cases where the total inventory of a weapon system is required for operational use to perform

an assigned mission at any given time.

7.10.2. Materiel reliability measures the probability a system will perform without failure over

a specific interval. Materiel reliability information can be found in DAFPAM 63-128.

7.10.3. Total Ownership Cost measures total costs as identified in the OSD Cost Assessment

and Program Evaluation O&S Cost Estimating Structure. Total ownership cost is measured in

accordance with OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Operating and Support Cost-

Estimating Guide.

7.10.4. Mean Down Time measures the average elapsed time between losing Mission

Capability status and restoring the system to at least Partial Mission Capability status. Mean

Down Time information can be found in DAFPAM 63-128.

7.11. Depot Maintenance and Sustainment Cost Reporting. Depot level maintenance applies

to work performed by both government and contractor personnel. It includes all types of contractor

support (CLS, contractor inventory control point, ICS, requirements contracts) and partnership

arrangements (Workshare Agreements, Direct Sales Agreements, and contract work excluded

under the terms of 10 USC Section 2474, Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence:

Designation; Public-Private Partnerships), regardless of the source and type of funding and where

the work is performed.

7.11.1. The PM supports HQ AFMC, in accordance with AFMC developed procedures, by:

7.11.1.1. Tracking obligated depot maintenance funds for programs, regardless of the

source of funds, for the purpose of reporting these obligations to AFMC.

7.11.1.2. Documenting rationale and methodology for tracking obligated depot

maintenance funds.

7.11.1.3. Ensuring contracts for depot level maintenance include requirements to

document and report funding.

7.11.2. To ensure compliance with 10 USC Section 2464 and 10 USC Section 2466, the PM

is responsible for reflecting the DAF core and organic requirements in programmatic strategies

and product sourcing documents throughout the program life cycle.

7.11.3. The PM working with the PCO is responsible for ensuring requirements for the

Contractor Sustainment Report are included in all major contracts and subcontracts, regardless

of contract type, valued at more than $50 million (then-year dollars). Reference DoDM

5000.04, Cost and Software Data Reporting, for additional detail.

7.12. Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance. The Depot Purchased Equipment

Maintenance Program provides a mechanism to collectively identify, plan, program, negotiate, and

budget for depot-level maintenance services provided by organic DAF depots, depots of other

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 107

Services, and contract repair sources. Refer to AFMAN 63-143 for detailed information on the

Depot Purchased Equipment Maintenance Program.

7.13. Depot Source of Repair. The DSOR process is the method by which the DoD postures its

depot level maintenance workloads: organic, contract, or a combination of both. It applies to

workloads for hardware, software, new acquisitions, and fielded systems whether the Government

or private contractor manages the system or subsystem. For fielded systems, the process is initiated

as soon as a change in posture is considered. Refer to AFMAN 63-122, Depot Source of Repair

Planning and Activation, for detailed process guidance.

7.13.1. The PM initiates DSOR planning early in the life cycle and documents DSOR planning

in the LCSP. The PM considers requiring delivery of an iterative supportability analysis

including a Level of Repair Analysis, a Maintenance Task Analysis, Failure Mode, Effects and

Criticality Analysis (FMECA), and Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System

(FRACAS) to better support depot maintenance activation activities if product support analysis

deliverables are not developed or acquired elsewhere. Reference GEIA-STD-0007 for

additional detail.

7.13.2. The PM ensures DSOR determinations for programs, systems, sub-systems, and end

items are processed and approved through AFMC. The PM provides all required data needed

to develop the DSOR to AFMC using the DSOR Automated Management System.

7.13.3. AFMC acts as the DAF executive manager for the DSOR process.

7.13.3.1. DSOR determinations for space programs, systems, sub-systems, and end items

are routed through USSF prior to submission to AFMC.

7.13.4. The DSOR Determination Process is comprised of several activities, each tied to

specific events in the acquisition life cycle.

7.13.4.1. The PM collaborates with AFMC to determine the core depot-level maintenance

and repair requirements. This analysis is completed prior to Milestone A, and the results

of the analysis are also documented in the Core Logistics Analysis Annex to the LCSP.

7.13.4.2. The DSOR is an estimate of requirements for core depot-level maintenance and

repair capabilities, the associated logistics capabilities, and the sustaining workloads

necessary to support these requirements. The DSOR is completed by Milestone B, and it

identifies sources of repair for each depot level reparable at the system and sub-system

level, at minimum, per AFMAN 63-122.

7.14. Contractor Logistics Support. The PM considers the use of CLS when developing and

implementing a comprehensive product support strategy. Specific funding guidance cannot cover

all contracts or situations; therefore, the PM, with assistance and advice from the Financial

Management organization, must review each proposed contractual action as described in

DAFMAN 65-605, Vol.1.

7.14.1. Contractor Inventory Control Point refers to the logistic support function where the

contractor is assigned the primary responsibility for Integrated Materiel Management of

peculiar items in support of DAF programs. Other supply chain management functions include

requisition processing, storage, shipment, delivery, pick-up receiving, shipping, in-transit

visibility/tracking/reporting, property accountability and handling of material. For additional

108 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

guidance refer to DoDM 4140.01, Vol. 8, DoDI 5000.64_DAFI 23-111, AFI 23-101, and

DAFMAN 23-119.

7.14.2. ICS is a temporary support method for an initial period of the operation of the system,

equipment, or end-item. This strategy is utilized for controlling capital investment costs while

design stability is being achieved and complex product support elements are being developed.

7.14.2.1. If ICS is planned, the PM ensures the Acquisition Strategy and LCSP include a

plan for transition from ICS to the long-term product support strategy (organic or contract),

as well as the beginning and ending dates of the ICS. ICS does not negate the PM’s

responsibility to achieve an organic, CLS or a Public-Private Partnership capability as early

as practicable.

7.14.2.2. The lead and using command(s) plan and advocate for programming and

budgeting for ICS cost and associated requirements for the sustainment of systems.

7.14.3. CLS requirements are programmed for and executed using the types of funds and

funding level approved by the lead command or AF CAM Executive Agent, AFMC. The PM

provides the lead command and AF CAM Executive Agent applicable copies of obligation

documents and expense reports as agreed to or as stipulated by the AF CAM Executive Agent.

The lead and using command(s) plan and advocate for programming and budgeting for their

portions of the CLS costs and any associated requirements for the sustainment of systems.

Reference DAFMAN 65-605, Vol.1, for more information.

7.14.4. CLS contracts are written based on characteristics for performance-based logistics.

The PM establishes flexible performance and funding ranges commensurate with targets

developed in conjunction with the lead command, industry partners, and other relevant

agencies across the acquisition, logistics, and user communities. These contracts can link

contract incentives to performance outcomes while allowing the DAF to make sound,

enterprise-wide, capabilities-based resource decisions when deciding where to accept risk.

7.14.4.1. CLS contracts are crafted to identify ranges of outcome performance with

thresholds and objectives and the target price (cost to the user) for each level of capability.

The contract reflects normal operations and delineates any constraints or boundary

conditions. CLS contracts should be flexible enough to address a range of support

requirements to accommodate changes in operational tempo or execution year funding,

including surge or contingency requirements to the extent they can be defined. If used, the

PM documents the thresholds, objectives, and target price of the CLS contract in the LCSP.

7.14.4.2. The PM, in collaboration with stakeholders, identifies needed CLS requirements

and makes provisions within regulation in the RFPs, Statements of Work, and contracts to

ensure visibility of direct contractor costs for each type of support material and service

being provided.

7.14.4.2.1. The PM implements contract data requirements for tracking and reporting

of total program cost and breakout of depot-level maintenance contractor and organic

costs.

7.14.4.2.2. The PM reports all CLS costs consistent with DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1.

The PM ensures CFO reporting is submitted for CLS contract assets in the applicable

Accountable Property System of Record in accordance with AFI 23-101.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 109

7.14.4.2.3. The PM ensures compliance with Defense Logistics Management

Standards transactional data reporting for CLS assets in the applicable Accountable

Property System of Record in accordance with Defense Logistics Manual (DLM)

4000.25, Vol. 2 and DoDM 4140.01, Vol. 8.

7.14.5. The PM coordinates and obtains MAJCOM/FLDCOM agreement on unit, base, or

MAJCOM/FLDCOM support requirements and ensures agreed-to support requirements are

included in the CLS contract. Reference AFI 25-201, Intra-Service, Intra-Agency, and Inter-

Agency Support Agreement Procedures for additional information.

7.14.6. The PM obtains AF Metrology and Calibration Program Group approval prior to

contracting for commercial calibration services or when deviating from currently established

calibration support plans in accordance with AFMAN 21-113.

7.14.7. The PM reviews the requirements in DoDI 3020.41 when making logistics

sustainability decisions regarding contract support in contingency operations outside the

United States.

7.14.8. CLS for commercial derivative/hybrid aircraft adheres to Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) maintenance standards, directives, and bulletins to the maximum extent

practical for commercial derivative aircraft, in accordance with respective manufacturer’s

maintenance manuals, military technical manuals, approved maintenance concept, and the

maintenance contract. For further information, see DAFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment

Maintenance Management and DAFI 62-601, Airworthiness. Reference AFMAN 13-204,

Vol. 3, Air Traffic Control, for requirements applicable to support for Air Traffic Control and

Landing Systems.

7.14.9. When making a DSOR determination for FAA certificated commercial

derivative/hybrid aircraft, organic DAF depot repair facilities are authorized to maintain and

repair in accordance with FAA maintenance standards, directives, and bulletins to the

maximum extent practical for commercial derivative aircraft, in accordance with respective

manufacture’s maintenance manuals, military technical manuals, and approved maintenance

concepts. For further information, reference AFMAN 63-122, Depot Source of Repair

Planning and Activation.

7.15. Public-Private Partnerships. Public-Private Partnerships are a logistics sustainment

philosophy involving a cooperative agreement between a program office, DoD Center of Industrial

and Technical Excellence, and private sector entities. The purpose of public-private partnerships

is to leverage the optimal capabilities of both the public and private sectors in order to enhance

product support to the warfighter/user. Public-Private Partnerships may be established in support

of any of the integrated product support elements.

7.15.1. Public-Private Partnerships are typically supported by three complementary

agreements. The prime contract documents the relationship between the program office and

the private sector entity. The Partnership Agreement establishes the overarching

organizational interactions, assumptions and processes the stakeholders agree to follow during

the partnership. The Implementation Agreement describes the specific workloads with the

details of performance execution by the partners, along with agreed upon workload forecast

and metrics. The PSM is responsible for developing and managing the public-private

110 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

partnership and harmonizing the three agreements to ensure an effective and affordable product

support strategy.

7.15.2. The PSM identifies potential public-private partnerships supporting the product

support strategy early in the life cycle, and continuously evaluates potential partnering

opportunities for the duration of the life cycle.

7.15.2.1. The PSM considers public-private partnerships in the RFP for the Engineering

and Manufacturing Development phase and documents the considerations in the LCSP.

7.15.2.2. For fielded systems, the PSM considers the use of public-private partnerships to

improve sustainment outcomes and documents the considerations in the LCSP.

7.15.2.3. The PSM provides copies of all partnership and implementation agreements

supporting the product support strategy in an annex to the LCSP.

7.15.2.4. The PSM, in collaboration with impacted Air Logistics Complex (ALC) or

responsible Government partner, periodically reviews each public-private partnership to

ensure it is effective, efficient, and meeting program targets.

7.15.3. The PSM, in collaboration with impacted Air Logistics Complex (ALC) or responsible

Government partner, conducts an analysis to ensure the decision to enter into an

Implementation Agreement is supported by an analysis specific to the particular workload

being considered for the partnership. Note: This analysis is tailored to the particular

Implementation Agreement and is different than the PS-BCA.

7.15.3.1. The analysis considers costs, benefits, opportunities, risks, investments, resource

needs, constraints, organic impacts, Core workload requirements, and the best use of public

sector capabilities. The analysis should assess potential partnership structures and

management controls to ensure best value of the Public-Private Partnership to the U.S.

Government.

7.15.3.2. The PSM may leverage analysis developed in support of the DSOR decision to

meet the requirement.

7.15.4. The PSM, in collaboration with impacted Air Logistics Complex (ALC) or responsible

Government partner, ensures cost data for all factors of production (e.g., direct labor, overhead,

materiel, as well as general and administrative expense) are captured, tracked, and monitored

for each Implementation Agreement supporting a public-private partnership. The cost data

must be quantifiable and measurable utilizing generally accepted accounting practices.

7.15.5. There are three basic types of public-private partnership arrangements: Direct Sales

Agreements, Workshares, and Leases. The PSM collaborates with the contracting officer to

ensure unique public-private partnership requirements are included in the applicable contract.

Such requirements might include workload requirements, remedies, or equitable adjustments.

Note: The PSM may request the Contracting Officer consider prime contract provisions for

equitable adjustments or excusable delays (relieving the contractor of responsibility for Air

Logistics Complex non-performance or non-compliance) when determining appropriate profit

and fee based on reduced contractor risk in accordance with DFARS 215.404-71.

7.15.5.1. In a Direct Sales Agreement, dollars flow from the government buying activity

directly to the contractor. The contractor, in turn, funds the depot by funds transfer to the

Department of Treasury for the goods/services supplied by the depot. The funds received

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 111

for work performed in support of a Direct Sales Agreement are credited to the depot’s

Working Capital Fund rather than getting deposited into a general U.S. fund account. The

contractor may also supply materiel to the depots in support of this type of arrangement.

7.15.5.2. A Direct Sales Agreement is the most appropriate type of public-private

partnership when the supported product is immature or unstable. A direct sales public-

private partnership is most appropriate when the supported product or process is immature

or unstable, and when the buying activity intends to transfer risks related to product or

process immaturity, or instability to the private partner.

7.15.5.3. Direct Sales Agreements must be scrutinized, and the pass-through costs

associated with this type of arrangement must be specifically addressed in the supporting

analysis.

7.15.5.4. The PSM includes the basis for selecting a Direct Sales Agreement in the LCSP.

7.15.5.5. A Workshare is an arrangement where the buying activity determines the best

mix of work leveraging and capitalizing on each partner’s capabilities. The workload is

then shared between the contractor and the organic repair entity. The contractor is funded

through a contract, and the organic depot is funded through a project order.

7.15.5.5.1. The partnering arrangement between the organic repair entity and

contractor focuses on the roles and responsibilities of each partner, and both jointly

work to accomplish the overall requirement.

7.15.5.5.2. A workshare PPP is most appropriate when the supported product is

relatively stable and mature, and when the buying activity does not intend to transfer

risk to the private partner.

7.15.5.6. Leases allow private industry access to facilities/equipment located at a Center

of Industrial and Technical Excellence. Facilities or equipment located at a Center of

Industrial and Technical Excellence may be made available to private industry to perform

maintenance or produce goods, if it does not preclude the Center of Industrial and

Technical Excellence from performing its mission. The goal is to make those government

owned facilities more efficient and ensure that a workforce with the necessary

manufacturing and maintenance skills are available to meet the needs of the armed forces.

7.16. Technical Orders. TOs provide clear and concise instructions for safe and reliable

operation, inspection and maintenance of centrally acquired and managed DAF systems and

commodities. The terms “Technical Manual,” “Interactive Electronic Technical Manual,” and

“manual” are used interchangeably with the term “TO.” The TO System consists of the methods,

procedures and the standard TO management system used to author, publish, manage, distribute

and use TOs.

7.16.1. Military and government civilian personnel operating or maintaining fielded systems,

subsystems, or end items (hardware and software) utilize and comply with applicable

government verified TOs. Compliance with TOs is mandatory, except as explained in TO 00-

5-1, AF TO System.

7.16.2. The PM documents the strategy for developing and verifying TOs in the TO Life Cycle

Management Plan and TO Life Cycle Verification Plan. Content requirements for these plans

is provided in TO 00-5-3, AF TO Life Cycle Management.

112 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

7.16.3. The PM is responsible to:

7.16.3.1. Ensure TOs and Preliminary TOs are developed and verified in accordance with

DoD 5010.12-M, Procedures for the Acquisition and Management of Technical Data, TO

00- 5-1, and TO 00-5-3. TOs for FMS systems are ordered and distributed in accordance

with TO 00-5-19, Security Assistance TO Program. U.S. Security Assistance

Organizations provide assistance to the PM as required.

7.16.3.2. Ensure fielded TOs are technically accurate and up to date.

7.16.3.3. Ensure TCTOs are issued and verified in accordance with TO 00-5-15.

7.16.3.4. Develop TOs in accordance with approved Government Technical Manual

Specifications and Standards and ASD-S1000D, International Specification for Technical

Publications Utilizing a Common Source Database, listed in the Technical Manual

Contract Requirements document, TM-86-01 used to document program requirements for

DAF Technical Manuals. This includes the development of linear-structured, Electronic

Technical Manuals and database- structured, Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals.

7.16.3.5. Provide TO management for the life cycle of assigned system/commodity TOs

and ensure fielded TOs are technically accurate and up to date in accordance with the

recommended change (RC) procedures and timelines specified in TOs 00-5-1 and 00-5-3

and AFI 11-215, Flight Manuals Program.

7.16.3.6. Provides inputs to the Comprehensive TO Plan for assigned system/commodity

in accordance with AFMAN 63-143.

7.16.3.7. Maintain currency of TO index, configuration, distribution, and content data,

etc., for assigned system/commodity in the Standard TO Management System.

7.16.3.8. Ensure Interactive Electronic Technical Manuals are developed in accordance

with ASD-S1000D and current business rules listed in MIL-STD-3048B, Air Force

Business Rules for the Implementation of S1000D.

7.16.3.9. Acquire existing COTS manuals instead of developing new TOs if there is no

degradation of performance. The manuals are assigned TO numbers and managed in the

TO system. When acquiring COTS manuals, request unrestricted rights.

7.16.3.10. Acquire and manage flight manuals when required in accordance with AFI 11-

215 and TO 00-5-3.

7.16.3.11. Review available manuals from other DoD components to determine adequacy

and application to particular programs. Joint-use technical manuals are integrated into the

TO system, assigned TO numbers, indexed, distributed, stored, reprinted, and rescinded in

the same manner as any other TO (AFI 20-118, Instructions for the Interservicing of

Technical Manuals and Related Technology Program).

7.16.4. The PM provides verified TOs for fielded DAF systems (hardware or software) that

are operated and maintained by military or government civilian personnel unless exceptions

are listed in TO 00-5-1 or waived by the PEO after consultation with the using command

commander.

7.16.5. In the absence of verified TOs for fielded DAF systems that are operated and

maintained by military or government civilian personnel, the PM can authorize the use of

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 113

Original Equipment Manufacturer repair manuals until developed TOs are available and

verified.

7.16.6. The PM ensures TO procedures to be used with nuclear weapons are nuclear safety

certified in accordance with DAFI 91-101 and AFI 63-125.

7.16.7. The PM provides TOs or other suitable technical data identifying procedures for

system disassembly, demilitarization, and disposal. Where procedures already exist (e.g., 309

Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group workbooks and procedures for existing

aircraft), the PM reviews and verify those procedures. Demilitarization and disposal

procedures should identify demilitarized-coded parts and Hazardous Material locations, and

include special tools and equipment, personnel qualifications, and ESOH requirements.

7.16.8. TOs should address equipment and special tools substitutions and restrictions. Do not

make substitutions and restrictions of equipment and tools used with nuclear weapons without

the approval of the AFNWC.

7.16.9. TOs may contain classified information only up to and including Secret-Restricted

Data. Data is classified in accordance with guidelines found in

DoDM5200.01V1_AFMAN16-1404 V1, and respective security classification guides.

7.16.10. Flight manuals are a type of TO and direction for managing and using flight manuals

is in AFI 11-215. Do not place unverified flight manual data on an aircraft for operational use.

For more information on managing and using flight manuals including requesting deviations

or waivers to specific flight manuals, see AFI 11-215.

7.16.11. Unclassified TOs are marked, controlled, and distributed in accordance with DAFI

61-201.

7.16.12. AFMC is designated the executive agent for the TO System. To ensure the

integration of the various system activities, AFMC assigns a TO System Director who is

responsible to:

7.16.12.1. Represent the DAF for TO technical and management issues with DoD, other

Government agencies, industry, and other DAF activities.

7.16.12.2. Develop processes and procedures for implementation, management, and

execution of the TO System. This can include chartering a Centralized TO Management

Committee for the coordination of TO policy recommendations with the using commands

and functional user communities.

7.16.12.3. Develop requirements for the operation, modernization, and maintenance of the

Standard TO Management System and for the integration of the system with other DAF

management systems.

7.16.13. Existing COTS operating instructions, part breakdown handbooks, and repair

manuals should be acquired instead of developing new TOs if no degradation in performance

results. Manuals are assigned unique TO numbers and managed within the Standard TO

Management System unless covered by the exclusions identified in TO 00-5-1.

7.16.14. The Standard TO Management System provides the capabilities to facilitate

acquisition and sustainment requirements. Programs must use the CAFTOP to plan and

schedule program requirements, TO Authoring and Publishing for organic sustainment of

114 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

technical data, Data Services Online for print and distribution, and Enhanced Technical

Information System for configuration management, distribute TOs and archive technical data.

These information systems are mandatory, unless exempted by TO 00-5-1 or TO 00-5-3.

7.17. Support Equipment/Automatic Test Systems (SE/ATS). Application of standardized

SE/ATS is preferred to provide efficiency and reduce cost. The PM minimizes the proliferation

of system-unique equipment at all levels while ensuring the maintenance and deployment

requirements of existing and developing systems are met.

7.17.1. The PM utilizes the AFMC support equipment recommendation document process to

acquire SE/ATS. System-unique equipment should be acquired only as a last alternative, after

coordination with the SE/ATS Product Group and consideration of SE/ATS already existing

in the DAF or DoD inventory.

7.17.2. The PM is responsible to:

7.17.2.1. Select SE/ATS based on cost benefit analysis over the system life cycle,

reliability, CBM+ compliance, standardization, and field hardness, size, mobility, ESOH

considerations and operational environmental needs.

7.17.2.2. Coordinate SE/ATS development, procurement, and modification requirements

with the SE/ATS Product Groups, who ensure DoD processes for Support Equipment and

Automatic Test System selection are followed. The SE/ATS Product Groups provide any

applicable SE/ATS-specific contract data requirements for incorporation when the PM is

authorized to procure unique/peculiar SE/ATS.

7.17.2.3. Submit waivers to the SE/ATS Product Group and obtains approval prior to

acquiring non-standard SE/ATS DoD solutions. The PEO responsible for the program

resolves any waiver disputes prior to procurement.

7.17.2.4. Endeavor to design systems, subsystems, and end-items to minimize new

SE/ATS development while still optimizing the life cycle users’ operational capabilities

and product support requirements.

7.17.2.5. Contract for and coordinates support equipment recommendation data with the

SE/ATS and AF Metrology and Calibration Product Groups. Coordinate with the AF

Metrology and Calibration on all calibration requirements, including those involving

Public-Private Partnerships.

7.17.2.6. Obtain SE/ATS Product Group Support Equipment Recommendation Data

approval prior to procurement of system unique SE/ATS. The PEO resolves any Support

Equipment Recommendation Data disputes prior to procurement.

7.17.2.7. Document requirements for new or replacement SE/ATS, or modifications of

existing SE/ATS.

7.18. Provisioning. The PM of new systems, subsystems, modifications to existing systems, or

sustainment activities for existing weapons systems determines and acquires as applicable the

range and quantity of support items, including initial spares, necessary to operate and maintain an

end-item of materiel for an initial period of service in time to meet the operational need date. Initial

spare parts include peculiar and common repairable and consumable components, assemblies, and

subassemblies must be available for issue at all levels of supply in time to support newly fielded

end items during their entire production run and initial retail fielding efforts. The PM ensures that

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 115

the logistics business processes implemented within their applicable programs are aligned with

provisioning guidance, to include obtaining planning factors, engineering data for provisioning,

repair level analysis, and logistics support analysis. Readiness-Based Sparing techniques will be

used in performance-based weapons system product support arrangements. Headquarters AFMC,

Logistics, Civil Engineering, Force Protection and Nuclear Integration Directorate (HQ

AFMC/A4/10), have been given delegated responsibility for provisioning procedural guidance in

accordance with AFI 23-101. Reference DoDM 4140.01, Vol. 2; AFPD 23-1, Materiel

Management; AFI 23-101; SAE-GEIA-STD-0007, Logistics Product Data; SAE TA-STD-0017,

Product Support Analysis, and other applicable DAF Provisioning guidance.

7.19. Divestiture Planning. Program divestiture planning is the process used to layout the rate

at which the system is drawn down; document decisions on whether to store them for future spares

requirements, send to Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services, or to demilitarize. The

planned divestiture is shared with the PSM, Environmental Resources Manager, and Supply Chain

Manager. The Supply Chain Manager will ensure this information is put into the DAF

computation system to ensure accurate repair and buy forecasts. (T-2) Divestiture planning

begins when the lead command identifies diminished mission requirements for a system due to

retirement, lower mission requirements, or mission changes to a particular platform. The PM/PSM

ensures appropriate funding to execute drawdown plan is in place, update program documentation

to include TOs and Programmed Depot Maintenance (PDM), and ensures requirements are

updated.

7.20. Demilitarization, Removal from Service, Disposal, Reclamation, and

Migration. Migration planning is an integral part of system life cycle planning as an element in

the inventory management of DAF assets. Demilitarization, reclamation, and disposal guidance

is contained in DoDM 4160.28, Vol 1, Defense Demilitarization: Program administration; and

AFI 23-101. For air and space programs also refer to AFPD 16-4, Accounting for Aerospace

Vehicles at Units and Installations and AFI 16-402, Aerospace Vehicle Programming, Assignment,

Distribution, Accounting, and Termination. For Nuclear Weapon Related Materiel refer to AFI

20-110. When the requiring activity determines equipment is obsolete or excess, the PM

documents equipment by part number/tool control number, states the asset is obsolete/excess, and

is being permanently removed from service with a copy of that document sent to the storage facility

manager. Note: Refer to AFI 23-101 for additional guidance.

7.20.1. Demilitarization Plans. Demilitarization planning early in the development of a

system is important to reduce the risks of inadvertent release of military property. Document

Demilitarization requirements for items such as prototypes and tooling, end items, and each

National Stock Number, as well as procedures for demilitarizing the items. DoDM 4160.28,

Vol 1 provides guidance for programmatic and procedural plans. Demilitarization plans are

documented when prototypes are delivered. The PM ensures demilitarization and disposal of

end items are addressed in the program budget.

7.20.1.1. Demilitarization Code Determination/Procedures and Execution of

Demilitarization Plans. Demilitarization code determination is performed as soon as

material designs are documented.

7.20.1.2. Programmatic Plans include the process (e.g., TOs, Configuration Control

Board, etc.) to ensure program changes such as technology insertion, block upgrades, and

approved engineering changes are documented in the procedural plan.

116 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

7.20.1.3. For aircraft programs, the PM develops a transition plan addressing reclamation

and disposal for each mission design series, to include peculiar end items associated with

the system. For systems not designated as mission design series, ensure the plan includes

mitigation to the system or end item level.

7.20.1.4. The PM documents an assessment of when the initial migration plan is due per

AFI 16-402. The migration plan is documented and periodically reviewed. Generally, this

would be when retirements of the system are scheduled in the Future Years Defense

Program (FYDP).

7.20.2. The PM is responsible to ensure demilitarization, disposal and reclamation support

requirements are identified and documented in the LCSP no later than milestone C. Forecast

funding well enough in advance to support execution of these activities throughout each

weapon system’s life cycle. Requirements should include recycling and disposal of hazardous

material, and analysis of the system if locations and quantities of hazardous materials are not

known. The PM periodically reviews and updates the forecasted funding and cost estimates for

military equipment and weapon system programs.

7.20.3. The PM disposes of IT hardware and software assets in accordance with AFMAN 17-

1203.

7.20.4. The PM determines if property is obsolete or excess to requirements prior to sending

property (to include Special Test/Special Tooling Equipment) to long-term storage.

7.20.5. When the owning activity determines equipment is obsolete or excess, the PM

identifies the equipment by part number/tool control number and provides documentation to

the storage facility manager that the equipment is being permanently removed from service.

Refer to AFI 23-101 for additional guidance.

7.21. Propulsion Management. Propulsion management refers to the management of assets that

are air breathing primary propulsion systems for manned and unmanned aerial vehicles.

7.21.1. AFMC has designated AFLCMC/LP as the Director of Propulsion. The Director of

Propulsion is the single focal point for propulsion life cycle management processes and

procedures and the AFMC point of entry for support to the PMs and MAJCOM/FLDCOMs.

The Director of Propulsion ensures standardized processes and the inclusion of requirements

for all acquisition and sustainment planning phases for the life cycle management of propulsion

assets as detailed in AFMAN 20-116, Propulsion Life Cycle Management for Aerial Vehicles.

7.21.2. Engines managed as essential items to weapon system performance are:

7.21.2.1. Purchased under the “Life-of-Type Buy” concept, which for a new program is

the initial acquisition of engines for the anticipated life cycle requirement of the program.

7.21.2.2. Subject to special centralized management, including inventory control,

computation of requirements, distribution, information systems, and be serially managed

and controlled throughout their life cycle in accordance with TO 00-25-254-1,

Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS) Engine Status, Configuration and

TCTO Reporting Procedures.

7.21.2.3. Assigned performance goals supporting the readiness goal of the weapon system

throughout its life cycle.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 117

7.21.3. PMs managing programs with propulsion system requirements must satisfy all

execution and reporting requirements as specified in AFMAN 20-116.

118 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 8

GUIDANCE APPLICABLE TO PROGRAMS CONTAINING INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGY

8.1. Networks and Information Integration Requirements Overview. The PM is responsible

for ensuring application of the RMF for all DoD systems, including during requirements

development, procurement, DT&E, OT&E, and sustainment consistent with AFI 17-101.

8.2. Planning Requirements. The PM is responsible for reviewing and implementing the

requirements related to security, interoperability, supportability, sustainability, and usability in

Table 8.1. These planning requirements do not apply to all programs except when required by

applicable law and regulation.

Table 8.1. Programs Containing Information Technology Requirements.

(A) Title: Clinger-Cohen Act Compliance

DAF Source Publication(s): AFMAN 17-1402,

Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance

Applicability: All AF programs containing

IT regardless of pathway or categorization.

When Required: Prior to all milestones and

contract awards in accordance with AAFDID at

the Defense Acquisition University portal at

https://www.dau.edu/aafdid/Pages/About.aspx.

Information: Clinger-Cohen Act compliance and reporting applies to the acquisition,

management, operation, and closure of all AF IT investments, as well as to all programs that

acquire IT. This includes NSS, space and non-space systems, IT systems acquisition programs,

DBSs, infrastructure, and intelligence systems.

(B) Title: IT Portfolio Management and System

Registration

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-110,

Information Technology Portfolio Management

and Capital Planning and Investment Control

Applicability: All IT and NSS

When Required: As early as possible but no

later than Milestone A or equivalent.

Information: The Information Technology Investment Portfolio Suite (ITIPS), or the

authoritative system designated in AFI 17-110, is an AF IT data repository used to collect system

information at the AF level for both internal compliance and reporting to DoD and OSD. Note:

SAPs and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) programs are not authorized in Enterprise

Information Technology Data Repository or ITIPS; SAP programs contact SAF/CN and SCI and

ISR programs contact A2/6OI for registration.

and NSS

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-140

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 119

Applicability: Applicable to all IT, including

NSS.

When Required: Testing completed before or

during OT&E.

Information: Interoperability considerations are documented in the Information Support Plan

(ISP), and test requirements are coordinated with the appropriate agency (CIO for AF, Joint

Interoperability Test Command for Joint requirements). Refer to DoDI 8330.01,

Interoperability of Information Technology (IT), Including National Security Systems for

detailed guidance.

(D) Title: AF IT Standards

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-140

Applicability: All IT

When Required: System Design

Information: The PM ensures system development adheres to mandated IT standards outlined in

the Global Information Grid Technical Guidance Federation

(https://gtg.csd.disa.mil/disr/dashboard.html). The PM also ensures technical and security

compliance with all relevant Defense Information System Agency (DISA) Security Technical

Implementation Guides.

(E) Title: Privacy

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 33-332, Air

Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program

Applicability: Systems that maintain, use, store,

or disseminate personally identifiable

information (PII)

When Required: Must be compliant prior to

deployment of the system and during

cybersecurity validation and budget recertification

Information: Ensure privacy controls are implemented to protect PII and other privacy related

information

(F) Title: Records Management

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 33-322,

Records Management and Information

Governance Program

Applicability: All programs creating and

receiving records

When Required: Must be compliant prior to

deployment of the system

Information: Electronic records (e-records) or record data have a National Archives and

Records Administration approved schedule that provides for the disposition of the e-records

when agency business need for the records ceases, i.e., destruction of temporary records and

transfer to the National Archives of the United States for permanent records.

(G) Title: IT Budget Reporting

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-110

Applicability: All IT Investments

When Required: Continuous

120 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Information: The PM supports the input of the DAF IT Budget Reporting requirements by

reporting in the designated DAF IT data repository: Information Technology Investment

Portfolio Suite and Select & Native Programming Data Input System for Information

Technology for Capital Investment Reports, also referred to as Exhibit 300s or Major IT

Investment. The PM ensures the dollar amounts entered are approved budget positions, as

reflected in the designated DAF budget repository, not funding requirements. Note: Refer to 40

USC Section 11319, Resources, Planning, and Portfolio Management, OMB Circular A-11, Sec

55 – Information Technology Investments; and the DoD Financial Management Regulation

7000.14-R, Vol. 2B, Budget Formulation and Presentation, Chapter 18, Information

Technology. SAF/CN provides specific AF guidance with its budget estimate submission and

President’s Budget Submission Guidance.

(H) Title: Enterprise Hardware and Enterprise

Software Contract Use

DAF Source Publication(s): AFMAN 17-1203

Applicability: All AF units purchasing IT

products and solutions

When Required: Contract Awards

Information: The PM, in coordination with the PCO, reviews enterprise hardware and software

contracts for applicability to determine if a requirement for a proposed IT acquisition is within the

scope of those contracts. If the applicability is unclear, the PM, in coordination with the PCO,

works with the program office managing the enterprise solution to determine the applicability.

For all acquisitions, the PM documents whether or not the program is using the contract vehicles

identified in AFMAN 17-1203 or available through the Office of the Chief Software Officer

(https://software.af.mil/) are in the strategy prior to any contractual action. If the program is not

using enterprise contracts, the PM documents the justification and rationale in the MDA approved

Acquisition Strategy.

(I) Title: Risk Management Framework

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-101

Applicability: All IT Investments

When Required: Throughout life cycle; to

support certification prior to test or operation

Information: The PM registers in the appropriate Enterprise Mission Assurance Support Service

(eMASS) and provides required cybersecurity documentation.

(J) Title: Cloud Computing

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-101

Applicability: All new and modernizing

(changing configuration baseline) IT

investments

When Required: System Design

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 121

Information: PMs will ensure that cloud computing technical requirements for acquisition

programs are in compliance with utilization of DoD Enterprise Cloud Environments, or other

approved cloud environments. Note: PEO C3I&N acts as both a Managed Services Office, under

the name Cloud One. Cloud One has established a set of baseline-driven platform and

infrastructure services in both physical and virtual hosting environments and ensure that an

application meets the technical requirements to move to a cloud. PEO C3I&N assists DAF

acquisition programs to define requirements and capabilities that can be leverage enterprise

services and existing cloud environments in order meet DoD Cloud Strategy and guidance.

(K) Title: Common Computing

Environments

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-110

Applicability: All new and modernizing

(changing configuration baseline) IT

investments

When Required: System Design

Information: Leverage enterprise services and existing infrastructures in order to identify

technical requirements for the materiel solution. Note: The PEO C3I&N Managed Services

Office (MSO) provisions Common Computing Environments. The MSO has established a

set of baseline-driven platform and infrastructure services in both physical and virtual

hosting environments.

(L) Title: Architecture

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-140

Applicability: All processes, services,

systems, and procedures in support of

decision making, transformation, and

governance

When Required: Program Offices must update

their solution architecture whenever there are

updates to the program. The architecture is

required for CCA review and submitted when an

ISP is reviewed in GTG-F.

Information: Program architectures are those architectures which reflect the programs, systems

and or services which provide IT support to the Domains and Service Core Functions. These

architectures are developed and managed by various AF organizations.

(M) Title: Information Support Plan

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-140

Applicability: IT and NSS programs,

regardless of ACAT, and systems in

sustainment that exchange information of any

type to other systems (e.g., not a stand-alone

system or application)

When Required: In accordance with the schedule

depicted in the AAFDID or pathway publication

for the pathway (MCA, MTA, Software, and

Defense Business System).

122 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Information: The Information Support Plan is a technical document required by DoDI 5000.85

and DoDI 8330.01 that provides a means to identify and resolve potential information support

implementation issues and risks that, if not properly managed, will limit or restrict the ability of a

program to be operationally employed to support existing and future mission requirements. It is

an authoritative document that directly informs the program’s test plan. Plan names may vary

when documentation is tailored and the Acquisition Adoptive Framework being used, for

example, major capability programs will have a TEMP with threshold and objective operations

parameters, and it is a key vehicle that supports validation of a program’s eligibility for

interoperability certification.

(N) Title: Air Force Cyber Intrusion Damage

Assessment

DAF Source Publication(s): AFI 17-130

Applicability: All DAF functional authorities

and MAJCOM/FLDCOM s

When Required: At the request of the DAF

Chief Information Security Officer

Information: Provide appropriate programmatic and technical subject matter experts, to work

with intelligence analysts, operations subject matter experts and cyber forces, as part of Integrated

Product Teams to assess compromised DoD information resulting from cyber intrusions to

defense contractor networks. DAF Damage Assessment Management Office personnel assist the

Integrated Product Teams in the damage assessment process. Damage assessment reports are

drafted for each case and disseminated to the appropriate DAF program offices, agencies, and

stakeholders for review and possible mitigation actions. Within 30 days of the damage

assessment report, the PM should provide the PEO a written response to the damage findings

along with proposed countermeasures and revised mitigation strategies that nullify the advantages

gained by an adversary from the documented information or propose acceptance of the threat risk

and rationale.

(O) Title: National Security Systems. NSS

determination.

DAF Source Publication(s): AFPD 17-1 and

DAFI 63-101/20-101

Applicability: All IT systems and programs.

When Required: At initial system and program

planning and accomplished again throughout the

life cycle when system changes are made. The

program determination should be reviewed at

least annually and resubmitted when the status

changes.

Information: Emphasis on program protection of national security systems continues to be a

topic highlighted by recent EO 14028 and National Security Memorandum 8, determination of a

system or program as a NSS should be an on-going process based on initial program or system

planning or changes to the program or system. A determination checklist of a program national

security assessment will be submitted by the program manager for review and approval and

validated and tracked by SAF/CNZ in ITIPS and SAF/AQX (or SAF/SQX for space systems) in

PMRT.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 123

(P) Title: Cybersecurity.

DAF Source Publication(s): DoDI 5000.90 and

DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113

Applicability: All IT systems and programs.

When Required: Throughout the life cycle.

Information: Leaders and experts must address how cybersecurity will evolve as technology and

threats advance for a program’s life cycle.

124 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 9

MODIFICATION MANAGEMENT

9.1. Modification Management Overview. Modifications are changes to hardware or software

to satisfy an operational mission requirement by removing or adding a capability or function,

enhancing technical performance or suitability, or changing the form, fit, function, and interface

of an in-service, configuration-managed DAF asset. Modifications can retain existing capability,

extend service life, correct product quality deficiencies, or retain/restore the functional baseline or

performance specification. Modifications may improve the operational availability of the item,

transform or modernize DBSs, or reduce ownership costs. This chapter applies to weapon systems

or other designated systems, subsystems, and items requiring additional configuration control.

9.1.1. All modification activities in continued materiel support of a weapon system are

assigned to a PM or designated individual with the responsibility for, and authority to

accomplish modification program objectives for the development, production, and sustainment

of materiel modifications satisfying user operational needs (waiver authority is the PEO).

The PM has overall management authority and accountability to accomplish the development,

T&E, production, and sustainment objectives for a given modification activity and coordinate

planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of the modification.

9.1.2. The PM removes temporary modifications from the host system or component at the

end of the modification period specified unless converted into a permanent modification. (T-1)

9.1.3. Modification requirements are documented, reviewed, and approved using an AF Form

1067 or appropriate JCIDS documentation as described in applicable 10-series AFIs. (T-1)

The AF Form 1067 (also referred to as the modification proposal) is validated by the lead/using

command(s) and approved by the assigned PM. It is the source for the technical requirements

baseline. For modifications involving an engineering change proposal, use the technical

description of the engineering change(s) for developing the technical requirements baseline.

9.1.4. The PM ensures data required for temporary modifications is developed and acquired

commensurate with the modification scope, duration, and employment (waiver authority is the

PEO). The PM documents data requirements for temporary modifications in the modification

proposal. For more information, refer to MIL-HDBK-61B.

9.1.5. The PM ensures proper financial accounting and document retention for permanent

modifications meeting the capitalization threshold. (T-0) Permanent modifications that result

in a signification improvement in capability or useful life extension may be considered a

capitalized improvement and associated costs would need to be added to the value of the

underlying asset. (See paragraph 45.5.2 for additional information).

9.2. AF Form 1067 Applicability. The AF Form 1067 provides a means to track modification

proposals through the approval/funding process, and to initiate actions to maintain configuration

control of items affected by the modification, even though the capability is described in a

previously approved capability requirements document. The form provides a means for the system

or commodity manager with configuration control over the affected asset(s) to document the

technical parameters associated with the modification, such as systems engineering requirements

and recommendations, impacts to logistics support elements associated with the asset(s), and the

type and amount of funding necessary to accomplish the modification.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 125

9.2.1. The AF Form 1067 normally used to initiate temporary modifications and permanent

sustainment modifications for fielded systems and equipment.

9.2.1.1. An AF Form 1067 can also be used to initiate and document the submission,

review, and approval of requirements for permanent capability modifications estimated to

cost no more than ten percent of the ACAT II minimum threshold dollar value (as defined

in DoDI 5000.85). Consult AFI 10-601 and the AF/A5/7 Capability Development

Guidebooks Vol 2A-H for detailed information on the DAF requirements generation,

capability requirements document preparation, and approval processes.

9.2.1.2. The requesting organization will complete capability requirements document

consistent with the planned pathway to establish the user’s requirement(s) for permanent

modifications upon determination at any point of the AF Form 1067 review/certification

process that the requirement exceeds thresholds defined in applicable 10-series AFIs. (T-1)

9.2.1.3. An existing approved capability requirements document or AF Form 1067

capability document for a temporary modification can be used as justification to transition

to a permanent modification. However, for long-term sustainment planning, a new AF

Form 1067 for the permanent modification must be approved.

9.2.2. UCA modifications processing is described in DoDI 5000.81_DAFI 63-147 and

applicable DAF 10-series publications.

9.2.2.1. A streamlined AF Form 1067 is generated and processed to summarize the

modification requirement, to document the technical parameters necessary to satisfy the

urgent need, and to initiate the modification management processes.

9.2.2.2. Other modification proposal documents, such as airworthiness directives

produced by the FAA and Service Bulletins developed by defense industry manufacturers,

may fulfill modification proposal documentation requirements, and be attached to the AF

Form 1067 for recording required reviews and approvals.

9.2.3. Lead, using, and implementing commands may develop standard processes for

subordinate units to develop, submit and validate AF Form 1067 information meeting the intent

of this instruction. For example, attaching a SEEK EAGLE Request, can fulfill or supplement

sections of the AF Form 1067.

9.3. Modification Types.

9.3.1. There are two primary types of modifications, temporary and permanent. Refer to the

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebooks, Vol 2A-H. and Attachment 2, Modification

Proposal Process, in this instruction for guidance on the use of AF Form 1067, and for

assistance defining, validating, and approving modification requirements.

9.3.2. Temporary Modifications. Temporary modifications change the configuration of an

item to enable short-term operational mission accomplishment, or to conduct T&E of new and

modified equipment. Temporary modification proposals are validated, reviewed, approved as

described in the AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebooks, Vol 2A-H and this instruction.

Refer to DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1 for DAF policy on funding. There are two kinds of

temporary modifications: Temporary Type 1 (Type-1 or T-1) and Temporary Type 2 (Type-2

or T-2).

126 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

9.3.2.1. Temporary modifications are managed using temporary modification baselines

and additional supporting documentation attached to the modification proposal for review,

approval, and potential future transition to a permanent modification.

9.3.2.2. Type-1 temporary modifications change the configuration of an item in order to

satisfy short-term operational mission requirements by adding, modifying, or removing

hardware or software components or capabilities in a manner providing an immediate

operational benefit. Type-1 modifications typically involve the use of existing off-the-

shelf or non-developmental items, including stock-listed equipment and materiel. The

Type-1 modification proposal specifies the number of units to be modified, duration of

installed Type-1 modification, and plans for removing the modification converting it to a

permanent modification.

9.3.2.2.1. Type-1 modifications cannot be used to circumvent the requirements

associated with permanent modifications, as prescribed in this instruction, or the lack

of appropriate modification funding. (T-1)

9.3.2.2.2. Type-1 modifications are normally accomplished and supported locally by

a MAJCOM/FLDCOM or base-level operational unit. If support includes partial or

full depot support, the lead/using command is responsible for funding the depot

requirements.

9.3.2.2.3. The PM is responsible to ensure all Type-1 modifications do not

compromise system capability and performance. This includes the PM conducting test,

in conjunction with the appropriate lead command test organization, to ensure

previously approved operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness of a Type-1

modified asset is not compromised.

9.3.2.2.4. Type-1 modification proposals are approved by the PM, lead command

certification/approval authority, or AF/A5R as specified in the AF/A5/7 Capability

Development Guidebooks, Vol 2A-H. Requests must include clear and compelling

evidence showing why the temporary modification is needed to support mission

requirements. The request should be coordinated through the lead command (as

identified by DAFPD 10-9), to the PM within AFMC, USSF, or AF/A5R as applicable.

T-1 modifications to AFRC or ANG systems, or if the system uses National Guard and

Reserve Equipment Account funding, will be coordinated through AFRC or ANG, and

using command before PM approval. (T-2) Type-1 modifications with duration of

greater than one year must be supported by clear and compelling justification/rationale

to exceed one year. Note: All T-1 AF Forms 1067s submitted under the five-asset/one-

year rule of the July 2001 version of AFI 63-1101(superseded) can no longer apply for

waivers and need to submit a new modification proposal (AF Form 1067).

9.3.2.2.5. Type-1 modifications are not authorized permanent logistics support such as

peculiar support equipment and sustaining engineering support. (T-2) However,

minimum essential logistics support, including verified technical data or ICS, essential

for the temporary operation and sustainment of the modification in its designated

mission environment are provided, consistent with weapon system support concepts

and product support strategies. The lead command determines these minimum

essential logistics support requirements in coordination with the PM.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 127

9.3.2.2.6. Type-1 modifications may be used to satisfy UCA programs in the Year of

Execution.

9.3.2.2.7. All Type-1 modifications are removed from the host system or component

at the end of the modification period specified on the approved AF Form 1067. (T-1)

9.3.2.2.8. If a new AF Form 1067 or other equivalent requirements documentation is

approved to replace the Type-1 with a permanent modification in lieu of removal, use

acquisition policy, procedures, processes, and funding guidance described in this

instruction for converting to a permanent modification. The lead command will

provide the PM with the new approved AF Form 1067 to use in updating the LCSP to

ensure permanent life cycle management issues such as supportability are addressed.

9.3.2.2.9. Organizations requesting to extend the installation of a Type-1 modification

beyond the currently approved quantity or time-period are required to prepare and

submit a new modification proposal.

9.3.2.2.10. Type-1 modifications are removed prior to host weapon system/component

input for PDM unless otherwise coordinated between the lead command/using

organization and the depot maintenance activity. In the rare situation where a Type-1

modification is not removed prior to PDM, the lead command/using organization

coordinate with the performing depot maintenance organization to ensure the Type-1

modification does not interfere with scheduled maintenance activities and that

maintenance activities do not alter the installed Type-1 modification.

9.3.2.2.11. Type-1 modification includes the inherent authority to install

developmental components of the modification, conduct testing for the purposes of

engineering investigations, and evaluate the modification to ensure the configuration

satisfies the Type-1 requirement and preserves the technical baseline.

9.3.2.2.12. Type-1 modified assets must be capable of being returned to their original

or currently approved permanent configuration within a time-period specified by the

lead command (typically 48 hours) and documented in AF Form 1067. (T-2)

9.3.2.2.13. Type-1 modification proposals describe any demilitarization and

disposition of components when removed.

9.3.2.3. Type-2 Temporary Modifications. Type-2 modifications are used to evaluate,

demonstrate, or exercise the technical performance, effectiveness, and the suitability of

developmental or test materiel (hardware, firmware, and software) capabilities. Type-2

modifications are also used to install and operate T&E-specific support equipment,

instrumentation and data recording equipment, telemetry systems, etc., on T&E assets.

Type-2 modifications may be used in support of all forms of T&E activity, including

DT&E, OT&E, and lead/using command-conducted force development evaluation

activities. An AF Form 1067 is required for Type-2 modifications. Type-2 modifications

to AFRC or ANG systems, or if the system uses National Guard and Reserve Equipment

Account funding, will be coordinated through AFRC or ANG, and using command before

PM approval. (T-2) If applicable, document how aircraft airworthiness assessment and

release are addressed for the Type-2 modification. Information on testing and evaluating

systems are found in DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103.

128 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

9.3.2.3.1. The PM, the lead command, and designated test agencies collaboratively

determine the number of assets requiring Type-2 modification based on the scope,

complexity, and length of T&E activities. They collaboratively determine the

organizational roles, responsibilities, and procedures for the configuration

management, installation, operation, sustainment, and funding requirements for each

Type-2 modification.

9.3.2.3.2. The PM, lead command, and test organization may create a single Type-2

modification proposal covering a specified period of time or series of integrated test

activities for the purpose of conducting incremental hardware and software T&E, or to

identify a range of test support equipment that may be installed in support of T&E

activities. In this case, the Type-2 modification proposal enables the PM, lead

command, and test organization to install and remove developmental or test materiel

(hardware, firmware, and software), or specific pieces of test support equipment on

designated test assets without the need for repeated configuration management reviews

and approvals. It also allows for testing of current aircraft stores used in a new

configuration or on different platforms. In all these cases, the PM, lead command, and

test agency should collaborate to maintain accurate and up- to-date configuration

control of affected test assets, and to coordinate specific materiel installation

requirements and activities.

9.3.2.3.3. T&E organizations and lead commands assist the PM to ensure safety and

performance of Type-2 modified assets, and to ensure Type-2 modified assets are

provided sufficient sustainment support as needed to complete directed T&E activities.

9.3.2.3.4. Type-2 modifications are maintained on the test asset(s) for as long as

necessary to complete T&E activities specified in approved test plans. The asset is then

removed and returned to its original or current approved permanent configuration.

Instrumentation data collection and other support equipment used for both current and

future test data collection requirements are not normally removed after each test. Such

Type-2 modifications are removed when no longer required. The Type-2 modification

approval authority authorizes retention or removal of instrumentation data collection

and other support equipment on test assets during Type-2 modification proposal

review, validation, and approval processes.

9.3.2.3.5. Type-2 modifications are normally removed prior to host weapon

system/component input for PDM unless otherwise coordinated between the lead

command/using organization and the depot maintenance activity. In the rare situation

where a Type-2 modifications are not removed prior to PDM, the lead command/using

organization coordinate with the PDM activity in updating the work package to

describe the Type-2 modification and ensure it does not interfere with the programmed

maintenance actions and that maintenance actions do not alter the installed Type-2

modification.

9.3.2.3.6. A Type-2 modification may be used to support T&E of proposed permanent

configuration changes. Upon the conclusion of T&E activity, the lead command, in

coordination with the PM, determines if the modification will be fielded. If fielded,

the Type-2 modification may remain in place upon completion of T&E activity while

a permanent modification proposal is processed and implemented in accordance with

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 129

the provisions of this instruction. The Type-2 modification will be upgraded to the

approved permanent configuration as part of the permanent modification program.

9.3.3. Permanent Modifications. Permanent modifications change the configuration of an

asset/software for effectiveness, suitability, survivability, service life extension, and reduce

ownership costs of a fielded weapon system, subsystem, or item. Some permanent

modifications are further designated as safety modifications.

9.3.3.1. Permanent modification efforts are required to comply with all program

requirements commensurate with the respective program’s ACAT or other categorization

level. The permanent modification baseline and additional documentation is attached to

the modification proposal for review and approval; then attached or included with the

appropriate existing acquisition program documentation.

9.3.3.2. Permanent modifications are used to satisfy requirements approved in accordance

with this instruction. An approved permanent modification includes the inherent authority

to install developmental components of the modification on test assets for the purposes of

conducting engineering investigations, developmental testing, and other evaluation of the

modification. An approved permanent modification also includes the inherent authority to

perform trial TCTO kit installations and verification activities on test assets to verify the

installation procedures and sustainment elements associated with the modification prior to

full-rate kit production or fleet- wide installation. A separate Type-2 Modification

Proposal is required when trial TCTO kit installs, proofing, and verification activities are

performed on operational assets/combat coded aircraft instead of test assets/aircraft.

9.3.3.3. Permanent modifications are only accomplished in response to an approved AF

Form 1067 or capability requirements document; reference AF/A5/7 Capability

Development Guidebook, Vol 2A-H for requirements documentation process information.

(T-0) The PM may initiate systems engineering tasks and preliminary design activities in

anticipation of approved modification documentation. The PM considers the technical

complexity and maturity of the stated need, along with programmatic risk, when preparing

modification program strategies and plans. In such cases, the PM limits expenditures to

the modification financing allowed by DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1 while the requirement is

undergoing coordination and approval. The modification requirement is fully documented

in an approved modification proposal/capability requirements document prior to starting

the modification, usually at program initiation for modifications managed as an acquisition

category program. Permanent modifications funded with investment dollars are

acquisition programs which fall under the acquisition execution chain of authority.

9.3.3.4. Normally, permanent modifications are installed across the entire inventory of the

host weapon system or product line. However, when necessary to support operational

mission requirements, permanent modifications may be installed on a subset of the host

weapon system or product line inventory with the approval of the lead command,

applicable PM, and AF/A5/7; reference A5/7 Capability Development Guidebooks, Vol 1-

5 and this instruction.

9.3.3.5. Permanent modifications may be conducted in discrete installation segments (e.g.,

“Group A” and “Group B” TCTO kit segments) when necessary to support operational

mission or deployment requirements or to manage the host weapon system or product line

inventory in a cost-effective manner. In this case, the content of each modification segment

130 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

must be approved by the lead command and the applicable PM. Full funding policy

requires all TCTO kit segments be procured with a single year appropriation to field an

increment of capability.

9.3.3.6. Permanent modifications are provided full logistics support (e.g., spares, support

equipment, technical data, IUID, Serialized Item Management, etc.) commensurate with

the host system or component maintenance concept and product support strategy/plans.

See product support/sustainment planning requirements in this instruction.

9.3.3.7. When considering modification proposals, approval authorities should seek the

most cost-effective solution over the system’s life cycle and determine availability,

suitability, and supportability of considered and selected solutions.

9.3.4. Safety Modifications. Safety modifications are permanent modifications correcting

materiel or other deficiencies which could endanger the safety or health of personnel, cause

the loss of, or extensive damage to, systems or equipment (including cyber intrusion), or

irreversible significant environmental impact. Safety modifications are also conducted to

correct materiel deficiencies which causes a Class A mishap, per the provisions of DAFI 91-

204, Safety Investigations and Reports.

9.3.4.1. The lead command in conjunction with the PM designates permanent modification

proposals as safety modifications if they meet the following criteria, whether directly

associated with a Class A mishap or not.

9.3.4.1.1. The underlying deficiency has been determined by the PM to be a “high risk”

or “serious risk” as defined in MIL-STD-882E of causing a mishap.

9.3.4.1.2. The Chief of AF Safety and decision authority concurrence with the

designation as a safety modification.

9.3.4.1.3. The PM has performed a risk analysis to determine the proposed

modification is technically feasible, operationally effective, and sustainable.

9.3.4.2. Safety modifications are given priority for funding and implementation over all

other pending modifications.

9.3.4.3. Safety modifications are accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this

instruction; however, the PM may deviate from the provisions of this chapter when

necessary to prevent loss of life or minimize risk to personnel. With the prior coordination

of the lead command, the PM may issue interim procedures or operating restrictions as

necessary prior to implementing a safety modification. Note: Aircraft grounding can only

occur in accordance with Chapter 4.

9.3.4.4. Safety modifications which implement FAA-issued airworthiness directives and

Service Bulletins comply with AFPD 62-6 and DAFI 62-601. Modifications which

implement FAA issued airworthiness directives and Service Bulletins receive priority for

funding and implementation when such modifications are necessary to preserve

certification and comply with Federal Aviation Regulations and standards.

9.4. Modifications to Assets Planned for Retirement (or Sunset Provisions). Modifications to

any aircraft (i.e., a given tail number), weapon, or other item of equipment that the SECAF plans

to retire or otherwise dispose of within five years after the date on which the modification would

be completed, are prohibited in accordance with Title 10 USC Section 2244a, Equipment

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 131

Scheduled for Retirement or Disposal: Limitation on Expenditures for Modifications. (T-0)

Exceptions to this prohibition include modifications which:

9.4.1. Cost less than $100,000 per modification as described in the prohibition (any aircraft

[i.e., a given tail number], weapon, or other item of equipment such as a space system).

9.4.2. Have reusable items of value installed as part of the modification that are, upon the

retirement or disposal of the modified item, to be removed from that item, refurbished, and

installed on another piece of equipment, and the cost of this modification, including the cost

of removal and refurbishment of reusable items of value, is less than $1 million.

9.4.3. Are designated as safety modifications.

9.4.4. 10 USC Section 2244a grants authority to the SECAF to waive the prohibition when

the SECAF has determined the modification to be in the national security interest of the United

States and has so notified the Congressional Defense Committees in writing.

9.5. Additional Modification Requirements. In addition to the general modification program

requirements prescribed in this DAFI, modification activities involving certain types of materiel

may impose additional management requirements on the using/lead command and PM.

9.5.1. Modifications in response to validated UCA requirements (JUON, JEON, UON, or top-

down directed requirements) are streamlined. For UCA program modifications, modify the

minimum number of systems needed for testing and in-theater operations, and implement as

line-replaceable “Group B” modification kits to the maximum extent possible. Note: The

UCA Decision Memorandum fulfills AF Form 1067 parts I, II, III and V; Part IV is

accomplished by the PM. In conjunction with the 1067, the validated requirements document

is used for configuration control and to manage installation and removal of UCA program

modifications pending a decision to determine whether to return the system or subsystem item

to its original configuration or implement an enduring capability. See Attachment 2 for more

information.

9.5.2. Modifications to aircraft are to comply with the airworthiness certification requirements

in AFPD 62-6 and AFI 62-601.

9.5.3. A SEEK EAGLE request is used to establish aircraft-stores configuration certification

requirements for aircraft stores configuration, flight clearance, TOs, or AFPAM 63-129.

9.5.3.1. Modifications involving non-nuclear munitions and their associated support and

training equipment must be certified in accordance with AFI 91-205, Non-Nuclear

Munitions Safety Board. Modifications involving nuclear munitions and their associated

support and training equipment must be certified in accordance with DAFI 91-101 and AFI

63-125.

9.5.3.2. Modifications involving directed energy weapons must comply with AFI 91- 401,

Directed Energy System Safety.

9.5.3.3. A SEEK EAGLE Request does not replace AF Form 1067 and is not used to

validate requirements for modification of aircraft or stores but may be used to supplement

an AF Form 1067.

9.5.4. Modifications to nuclear certified equipment or items are to also meet the requirements

in DAFI 91-101 and AFI 63-125.

132 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

9.5.5. Modifications to devices which transmit electromagnetic energy must include

appropriate spectrum certifications required by DoDI 4650.01, DAFI 17-220, MIL-STD-464,

Electromagnetic Environmental Effects, and MIL-STD-461G, Requirements for the Control of

Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics of Subsystems and Equipment.

9.5.5.1. Consult DAFI 17-220 for specific guidance related to the certification of Radio

Frequency dependent devices and applicable certification of modified spectrum dependent

systems for worldwide DoD use.

9.5.5.2. Radio modification efforts are subject to additional OSD policy requirements.

9.5.5.3. Modifications to Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming Equipment are

subject to DAFMAN 10-703, Electromagnetic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming.

Electronic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming equipment is used to make changes to

operational electronic warfare hardware and software systems, threat simulators and

emitters, aircrew training devices, and other related support systems.

9.5.6. Modifications to defense communications system equipment, such as the Defense

Switching Network and defense communications satellite terminals are initiated, approved,

and conducted in coordination with the DISA. DISA designates DoD communications

equipment as defense communications systems configuration items. DISA participates in

configuration control processes and boards for defense communications systems configuration

items modifications executed by the DAF.

9.5.7. Modifications to intelligence and information systems and networks may be subject to

other requirements (e.g., interoperability, cybersecurity, spectrum management). Contact

AF/A2/6 or SF/S2 for additional information.

9.5.8. Modifications to SE/ATS systems follow guidance contained in this instruction.

9.5.8.1. For common SE/ATS modifications, coordinate with the designated support

equipment Product Group.

9.5.8.2. For unique SE/ATS modifications, coordinate with the PM.

9.5.9. Modifications involving materiel subject to Serialized Item Management comply with

DoD and DAF policies which require DAF materiel to be equipped with standardized,

machine-readable markings providing globally unique and unambiguous identification of

individual assets. Marking modifications to DAF materiel must comply with Serialized Item

Management policy provisions contained in DoDI 8320.03, DoDI 8320.04, DoDI 4151.19, and

this instruction. The PM ensures all modification activities are conducted in compliance with

DFARS 211.274, Item Identification and Valuation Requirements, DFARS 252.211-7003,

Item Identification and Valuation, DFARS 252.211-7007, Reporting of Government-

Furnished Property, and MIL-STD-130N, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property.

9.5.10. Serialized item management requirements such as IUID registration and marking are

considered for temporary modifications based on the long-term strategy of the modification.

Assets used for temporary modification do not require IUID marking and registration the AF

Form 1067 states the strategy is dispose of the assets at de-modification.

9.5.11. AF operational training system modifications follow guidance contained in AFI 16-

1007. Additionally, modifications to prime systems which affect corresponding training

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 133

equipment must be coordinated with the appropriate training device PM as part of the overall

modification.

9.5.12. The provisions of this DAFI are applicable to modifications involving DAF materiel

sustained via CLS contracts. The PM ensures CLS contracts include specific work

requirements, terms, conditions, and deliverables necessary to satisfy the modification and

configuration management requirements prescribed in this instruction.

9.5.13. All modifications (temporary or permanent) involving FMS or security assistance

assets are conducted in accordance with existing management arrangements between the U.S.

Government and the affected foreign government(s). In the event existing management

agreements do not specifically or sufficiently address the modification of FMS and security

assistance assets, the PM contacts the AFSAC Directorate to coordinate modification activities

involving such assets. Modifications pursuant to International Armaments Cooperation

Agreement follow guidance in AFI 16-110, US Air Force Participation in International

Armaments Cooperation (IAC) Programs.

9.5.14. Modifications to assets under the management purview of a joint program office are

conducted in accordance with the designated lead Service’s modification management

process/procedures, or as established in a MOA.

9.5.15. Modifications to systems and equipment developed by the Missile Defense Agency

and transferred to the DAF will comply with configuration management procedures established

in a MOA between the DAF and the Missile Defense Agency. If DAF funds are used to

implement modifications to an in-service Missile Defense Agency-developed system, apply

the conditions of this instruction in addition to modification program management and

configuration management agreements between the DAF and the Missile Defense Agency.

9.5.16. Modifications to DAF assets on loan to a non-DAF agency (e.g., DIA, security

assistance organizations, etc.) are initiated, approved, and conducted in accordance with a

MOA between the DAF and the using agency. Modifications to DAF-common assets that are

initiated by a non-DAF agency are be reviewed, validated, approved, and evaluated for DAF-

wide application by the lead command or commodity manager with overall management

responsibility for the asset.

9.5.17. Technology demonstrations requiring modification of an in-service DAF asset to

evaluate the capability or technology follow guidance in this instruction. The modifications

necessary to conduct a testing demonstration are normally approved and installed as Type-2

modifications.

9.5.18. Modifications to aircraft or remotely piloted aircraft creating a change to standard

flight manuals must comply with the modification flight manual guidance provided in AFI 11-

215. Modification introduced changes include but are not limited to changes in the cockpit

and flight crew station, changes in aircraft and system operating limits, and changes to crew

procedures.

9.5.19. The PM will assess modifications for ESOH risks and hazardous materials. Identified

ESOH risks and hazards are to be integrated into the overall platform ESOH risk and hazard

tracking system(s). (waivable by the PEO)

134 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

9.6. Modification Fielding and Installation. Permanent modifications are generally installed on

DAF weapon systems and equipment using a TCTO prepared in accordance with this instruction

and TO 00-5-15, Air Force TCTO Process. Contractor provided field Service Bulletins and FAA

issued airworthiness directives and Service Bulletins may also prescribe specific modification

installation procedures and requirements. Temporary modifications are generally installed using

a technical or engineering data package describing the system or component engineering changes

and outlines the component modification instructions to be accomplished. This data package must

be approved by the applicable system or component PM prior to installation (waivable by the

PEO). The PM, lead command, and test agency coordinate as necessary to define specific technical

or engineering data package requirements.

9.6.1. The PM coordinates modification installation requirements and timelines with the lead

command and all affected organizations, including Product Support Providers (waivable by

the PEO). The PM ensures modification installation activities do not begin until the lead and

using commands have identified and resolved any fielding issues associated with the

modification (waivable by the PEO). Additionally, the PM ensures sufficient time is provided

to develop and field any infrastructure, environmental analysis, or other product support

requirements necessary to operate and sustain the modification once it is fielded. (T-1)

9.6.2. Temporary and permanent modifications may be installed at base level by organic

unit/MAJCOM/FLDCOM personnel that initiated the modification proposal, by PM and

organic field teams, and by CLS personnel, or a combination thereof. Modifications may also

be conducted in conjunction with depot maintenance activities, at contractor facilities, or a

combination thereof.

9.6.3. Upon receipt of the approved modification proposal document from the lead command,

the PM coordinates the modification installation schedule with all affected organizations. Prior

to trial kit installation, T&E activities, or field operation, the Chief Engineer, in support of the

PM, ensures that any requisite certifications that accompany the modification are in place, such

as safety of flight releases, airworthiness approvals or nuclear certifications (waivable by the

PEO). All modification installation documents are approved by the PM (waivable by the

PEO).

9.6.4. The PM ensures all modifications include a plan for product support and logistics

requirements as described in this instruction and AFPAM 63-129 to ensure the modification is

sustainable for the duration of its intended life cycle (waivable by the PEO). Generally, this

involves updating the existing weapon system LCSP to reflect modification requirements in

terms of all applicable integrated product support elements. For temporary modifications, the

PM collaborates with lead/using command(s) and participating test organizations to determine

the minimal support requirements and responsibilities necessary to accomplish, operate and

maintain the modification during its limited installation lifespan.

9.7. Modification Close-out. The PM will ensure proper disposal for modification kits that

become excess (waivable by the PEO). For configuration control and management purposes, a

complete copy of the modification package will be maintained in accordance with AFI 33-322 and

the AF Records Disposition Schedule.

9.7.1. All temporary modifications close out when they are replaced by permanent

modifications or removed from the host system or component as specified in the approved AF

Form 1067.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 135

9.7.2. When a TCTO is or will be rescinded, and there are excess kits, the PM verifies that all

affected systems/items/equipment spares have been modified and provide supply chain

managers with disassemble/disposition instructions for the excess kits per AFI 23-101.

9.7.3. Technical data, which exists prior to the modification, must be retained until all affected

systems/items/equipment have been modified. When the last asset has been modified, all pre-

existing data must be updated by formal changes or revisions to technical data/manuals, thus

ensuring the current configuration is reflected. (T-1)

9.7.4. The PM will record status and financial data to support change in valuation of assets

caused by a modification. Reference local AFLCMC or SSC procedures for additional

guidance on valuation of modifications. (T-0)

9.7.5. When the modification has been completed, shipping or disposition instructions for

GFP must be provided. (T-0) The PM is notified when modification kit installation has been

completed and the TCTO has been rescinded.

9.7.6. Unsuccessful completion of the modification must also be documented including the

reason for termination and any plan to recover assets (waivable by the PEO).

9.8. Modification Management Reporting. See Chapter 11 for more information.

136 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 10

ACQUISITION WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

10.1. Overview. The purpose of this chapter is to identify acquisition workforce management

and professional development requirements and responsibilities. The 1990 Defense Acquisition

Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA), codified at 10 USC Sections 1701-1766, along with DoDI

5000.66, Defense Acquisition Workforce Education, Training, Experience, and Career

Development Program provides specific minimum qualification standards of those personnel

performing functions integral to the acquisition process and defines Critical Acquisition Positions.

The law requires DoD to formalize career paths for personnel who wish to pursue careers in

acquisition to develop a skilled, professional workforce.

10.2. Acquisition Workforce. For the purposes of this publication, the acquisition workforce is

defined as those military DAF individuals and permanent civilians assigned to positions having

predominantly acquisition functions as defined by DoDD 5000.01, DoDI 5000.02, and DoDI

5000.66. These positions are designated by acquisition coding in the manpower and personnel

systems of record.

10.3. Responsibilities and Authorities. SAF/AQ, in collaboration with SAF/SQ, establishes

policy and provides DAF oversight for acquisition workforce management and professional

development, and in accordance with DoDI 5000.66, is responsible for implementing the OSD

Acquisition Workforce Education, Training, and Career Development Program in the DAF on

behalf of the SECAF. For more detailed guidance, please see the program guide in the Acquisition

Functional area of the AF Portal: https://www.my.af.mil/gcss-

af/USAF/site/ACQUISITION/Career.

10.3.1. Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM) for the DAF. SAF/AQ designates

the Director, Acquisition Career Management (DACM) with authority to assist the SAE for

USAF and USSF with oversight and execution of acquisition workforce responsibilities.

Responsibilities of the DACM include:

10.3.1.1. Developing, implementing, and overseeing policies and procedures for the DAF

Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP).

10.3.1.2. Representing the DAF as point of contact with Defense Acquisition University

(DAU) and other DoD Components for matters relating to the OUSD(A&S) Workforce

Education, Training, and Career Development Program.

10.3.1.3. Managing training matters associated with the DAWIA implementation,

including DAU course quotas.

10.3.1.4. Managing the DAF share of the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development

Account.

10.3.1.5. Establishing programs to provide career and talent development opportunities

for the acquisition workforce in accordance with the DAWIA, associated regulations, and

DAF acquisition workforce human capital strategic planning objectives.

10.3.1.6. Establishing and maintaining acquisition career management information

systems for experience, training, waivers, continuous learning, certification, and

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 137

acquisition personnel records review as needed to execute acquisition workforce

responsibilities.

10.3.2. Acquisition Functional Area Leaders. SAF Acquisition Functional Area Leaders,

appointed by the SAEs advise the DACM on acquisition workforce management issues and

assist in execution of acquisition workforce responsibilities in respective acquisition functions.

SAF Acquisition Functional Area Leaders are responsible for identifying, in coordination with

the DACM, the USAF and USSF requirements for acquisition training, functional credentials

and the certification (education, training, and experience) standards to OUSD(A&S). SAF

Acquisition Functional Area Leaders appoint a functional APDP Manager, as applicable, to

manage APDP responsibilities for DAF members in acquisition functional areas. Provide

oversight and guidance on acquisition training continuous learning and training credentials.

Oversight of acquisition functional experience verification by designated subject matter

experts in respective functional areas. Manage DAF level functional acquisition awards and

nominations for acquisition awards at OSD in relevant functional areas.

10.3.3. MAJCOM/FLDCOM Commanders. MAJCOM/FLDCOM s are responsible for

designating military and civilian acquisition positions within their respective organization in

accordance with 10.4.1. MAJCOMs/FLDCOMs will ensure assigned acquisition positions are

properly coded within the appropriate manpower and personnel data systems and will review

these positions periodically to ensure compliance with APDP coding policy.

MAJCOMs/FLDCOMs will provide a single MAJCOM/FLDCOM APDP point of contact to

SAF/AQH and will appoint qualified Functional APDP Managers and APDP representatives

within their organizations, as required. For more information, see detailed APDP guidance in

the acquisition functional area of the AF Portal.

10.3.4. Supervisors of Individuals Assigned to Acquisition Positions. Supervisors are

responsible for notifying personnel in their organization whose positions are designated as

acquisition positions about their APDP responsibilities to include the functional category and

level of required certification, and if appropriate, tenure agreement, and all statutory

requirements. Supervisors assist acquisition workforce members in developing and executing

Individual Development Plans (IDP) to accomplish APDP requirements including statutory

and assignment specific training/education, certification, tenure, and professional

currency/continuous learning standards.

10.3.5. Individuals Assigned to Acquisition Positions. Individuals assigned to acquisition

coded positions are required meet all APDP requirements including statutory and assignment

specific training/education, certification, tenure, and professional currency/continuous

learning standards. (T-0)

10.4. AF Acquisition Professional Development Program. The APDP is designed and

managed to facilitate the development, credentialing, and maintenance of a professional

acquisition workforce. Refer to the Career/APDP section in the acquisition functional area of the

AF Portal for detailed information and implementing instructions (hereafter referred to as “detailed

APDP guidance”).

10.4.1. Designating Acquisition Positions. If the duties of a position (regardless of series) are

predominantly acquisition functions as defined by DoDD 5000.01, DoDI 4205.01, DoD Small

Business Programs (SBP), DoDI 5000.02, and DoDI 5000.66, then the position falls under the

provisions of this DAFI and is coded as an acquisition position in accordance with detailed

138 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

APDP guidance. (T-1) In addition to Regular AF, USSF and permanent civilians, Active

Guard and Reserve (AGR) and civilian over hire positions may be designated as acquisition

positions. Acquisition coded positions require certification. Non-AGR military guard and

reserve positions may be coded as acquisition positions for training priority management only.

See the certification paragraph below and the detailed APDP guidance for additional

information.

10.4.1.1. APDP position coding identifies required Functional Area certification tier and

based on requirements of the position.

10.4.1.2. All 63XX positions are considered acquisition positions and coded in accordance

with best fit for the acquisition function of the position and detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.1.3. All civilian 1102 and all Active Duty and AGR military 64XX and 6C0X1

positions are considered acquisition positions and are only coded Contracting. Other

occupational series or AFSC may not be coded as contracting.

10.4.2. Certain senior level acquisition-coded positions are designated as Critical Acquisition

Positions (CAP) based on the criticality of the position to an acquisition program, in

accordance with DoDI 5000.66. Personnel assigned to CAPs provide needed acquisition

experience as well as stability and accountability to a program. Positions that require CAP

designation include:

10.4.2.1. Senior Executive Service (SES), Colonel (O-6), and General Officer acquisition-

coded positions.

10.4.2.2. Senior Materiel Leader positions (civilian and military) of acquisition

organizations directly responsible for ACAT I and II programs are coded Program

Management Advanced and require completion of the training statutorily required for

ACAT I and II PMs.

10.4.2.3. The following positions that are a subset of NH-IV (or equivalent), and O-5

acquisition-coded positions:

10.4.2.3.1. All acquisition-coded Materiel Leader (civilian and military) positions.

10.4.2.3.2. Civilian positions with direct responsibility and accountability for an

acquisition program, effort, or function directly supporting an ACAT program, and

have duties and responsibilities that require a three-year tenure for program stability.

For more information, see detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.2.3.3. Military positions with direct responsibility and accountability for an

acquisition program, effort, or function directly supporting an ACAT program, and

have duties and responsibilities that require a three-year tenure for program stability.

This includes all acquisition-coded positions requiring officers graded at the O-5 level

or above, including but not limited to Materiel Leader positions. O-5 positions

routinely filled by an officer of lower rank do not require a CAP designation.

10.4.2.4. Further examples of positions that should be coded CAP can be found in the

detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.2.5. O-4/GS-13 (or equivalent) or lower grade positions are not coded as CAPs.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 139

10.4.2.6. All CAPs are coded to highest certification tier available to the functional area

of the position.

10.4.2.7. Individuals assigned to CAPs incur a three-year tenure.

10.4.2.7.1. Civilians: DD Form 2888, Critical Acquisition Position Service

Agreement, is used to document the CAP tenure agreement. Individuals sign DD Form

2888 (Block 6a) to capture tenure agreement and document in Defense Civilian

Personnel Data System. Approving Official on DD Form 2888 (Block 6c) is the hiring

official.

10.4.2.7.2. Military: AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC)

Acknowledgement Statement is used in lieu of the DD Form 2888, with the Assignment

Availability Code 59 updated for the required tenure.

10.4.2.7.3. Tenure periods for ACAT I Program Managers are applied based on two

distinct periods, Program Definition and Program Execution. A single PM is assigned

for each of these periods unless the PM is removed for cause or for exceptional

circumstances (e.g., period longer than appropriate for a single person).

10.4.2.7.4. Program Definition period. The tenure for ACAT I PM begins at an

“initiation” point that falls between the Analysis of Alternatives and six months prior

to RFP Release Decision Point (varies by program) and ends at Milestone B.

10.4.2.7.5. Program Execution period. The tenure for ACAT I or IA PM begins

following Milestone B approval and runs until IOC.

10.4.3. Key Leadership Positions. A subset of Critical Acquisition Positions that require SAE

oversight of position qualification requirements and tenure are designated Key Leadership

Positions (KLPs). KLPs are determined and designated by the SAE. Further guidance on

KLPs is outlined in AFI 36-1301 and detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.3.1. Civilian: DD Form 2889, Critical Acquisition Position Service Agreement Key

Leadership Position (KLP), is used to document the KLP tenure agreement. Individuals

sign DD Form 2889 (Block 6a) to capture tenure agreement and document in Defense

Civilian Personnel Data System. Approving Official signature on DD Form 2889 is not

required unless the tenure period is other than the default criteria established by the SAE.

10.4.3.2. Military: An AF Form 63, is completed to cover the tenure period (AFI 36-2100,

Military Utilization and Classification), and an Assignment Availability Code 59 is

updated for required tenure as outlined in DAFI 36-2110, Total Force Assignments,

therefore, the DD Form 2889 is not required.

10.4.3.3. Assignment Availability Code 59 and Regular AF Service Commitment are

removed when a military member is no longer serving in a KLP and prior to the expiration

of the updated tenure period with an SAE approved waiver.

10.4.4. Certification. Ensure individuals assigned to acquisition positions meet all position

certification requirements, in accordance with DoDI 5000.66. The DACM uses an automated

online certification tool to execute the certification process. Acquisition workforce members

receive certification via the online certification system found on the Career/APDP section in

the acquisition functional area of the AF Portal. Currently military and government civilian

employees who are not currently occupying acquisition coded positions may also receive

140 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

certification if the certification tool documents that the current requirements have been met.

For implementing instructions including acquisition record updates and POCs, refer to the

detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.4.1. Criteria for Manual Certification. Under exceptional circumstances,

certifications may be processed manually rather than using the online certification tool. As

delegated by the DACM, Certifying Officials serve as the DAF approval authority for

issuing acquisition professional certification credentials manually in accordance with

DoDI 5000.66. Certifying Officials are accountable for ensuring current functional area

education, training, and experience standards are met for certification. The DACM issues

criteria for Certifying Officials. Refer to the detailed APDP guidance for further

information.

10.4.4.1.1. Delegation of Manual Certification Authority. The DACM may delegate

certification authority for Foundational, Practitioner, and Advanced Certification to the

following (where Certifying Official criteria are met):

10.4.4.1.1.1. HAF Functional Managers.

10.4.4.1.1.2. MAJCOM/FLDCOM Headquarters.

10.4.4.1.1.3. Others as identified in detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.4.1.2. As delegated by the DACM, manual certification authority remains with

the SAF Acquisition Functional Area Leads for DAF personnel assigned to DRUs,

FOAs, Unified Commands, DoD Agencies, and other Components.

10.4.4.1.3. As delegated by the DACM, SAF Functional Area Leaders are the

Certifying Official for GO and SES members who meet functional category acquisition

certification requirements. This authority may not be re-delegated.

10.4.4.1.4. The DACM may delegate authority to adjudicate acquisition experience

and approve acquisition course fulfillment for the purpose of documentation in the

system of record to support certification. Refer to detailed APDP guidance for further

information.

10.4.4.1.5. Acquisition experience verification. The DACM may delegate experience

verification to be used for certification to designated acquisition functional area SMEs

(where SME criteria are met):

10.4.4.1.5.1. SAF Functional Area Leaders.

10.4.4.1.5.2. Major and Field Command Headquarters Acquisition Functional

Managers and designated Functional SMEs.

10.4.4.1.5.3. Acquisition Center Functional Managers and designated Acquisition

Functional SMEs.

10.4.4.1.5.4. Other acquisition Functional Area SMEs as identified in detailed

APDP guidance.

10.4.5. Professional Currency.

10.4.5.1. Individuals assigned to acquisition-coded positions maintain professional

currency in their acquisition functional area by meeting mandatory DoD and AF

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 141

Continuous Learning standards and recording Continuous Learning accomplishments in

Acq Now (https://acqnow.atrrs.army.mil/). (T-0) Responsibility falls upon the

individual and their supervisor to ensure their Continuous Learning aligns with their IDP

and currency is measured in performance feedback. Individuals on acquisition-coded

positions who fail to meet the professional currency requirement are considered non-

current. Annual ethics training is the only training requirement common across the entire

acquisition workforce. For details on execution of continuous learning, refer to the detailed

APDP guidance.

10.4.5.2. Officers who are not Continuous Learning current as of the Materiel Leader

board date are ineligible. Civilians who have not achieved the Continuous Learning

standard within a two month period after becoming non-current are not eligible for

acquisition Civilian Material Leader board or Strategic Leader Program positions. In

addition, individuals require Continuous Learning currency to compete for special

acquisition career development programs or DAF acquisition awards unless a waiver is

granted. For more details, refer to the detailed APDP guidance.

10.4.5.3. Online and instructor-led courses required for APDP certification and continuous

learning may be accomplished during dedicated duty time either during the normal duty

day in the workplace, or through such means as organization approved alternate work

schedules, or teleworking, subject to supervisor approval. Individuals should not be

expected to accomplish required training during off-duty hours.

10.4.5.4. Guard and reserve personnel possessing an acquisition DAF Specialty Code may

enroll in DAU courses for professional development including all courses required for

DAWIA certification tiers.

10.4.5.5. Members of the Acquisition Workforce on Critical Acquisition Positions are

expected to have recent acquisition experience and retainability.

10.4.6. Waivers. DAWIA and DoD policy permit waivers for position qualification

requirements or tenure requirements on a case-by-case basis when in the best interests of the

DAF. Process waiver requests, coordination, and approval/disapproval via the OUSD(A&S)

Workforce Waiver Tool. Refer to detailed APDP guidance for further information.

10.4.6.1. A position requirements waiver does not confer certification or permanently

obviate the acquisition related requirements of the position.

10.4.6.2. The SAE (or designated representative) must approve waivers from the approved

tenure commitment for KLPs.

10.4.6.3. Delegation of Waiver Approval Authority.

10.4.6.3.1. The DACM office will receive KLP waiver requests from the field and

coordinate SAE disposition.

10.4.6.3.2. Authority for Senior Contracting Official position requirements waivers is

delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting) (SAF/AQC), in coordination

with SAF/SQ, for personnel assigned to space organizations. This authority may not

be re-delegated. Waivers must be coordinated through the appropriate Head of

Contracting Authority.

142 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

10.4.6.3.3. The DACM or Deputy DACM grants waivers for position and tenure

requirements for all non-KLP critical acquisition positions.

10.4.6.3.4. The DACM may delegate waiver authority for acquisition position

requirements. Refer to detailed APDP guidance for further information.

10.4.6.3.5. The PEO, Deputy PEO, or Director is given authority to waive the

requirement for a new tenure agreement when an individual is reassigned from a non-

KLP critical acquisition position within the PEO portfolio or directorate to another non-

KLP critical acquisition position within the same PEO portfolio or directorate. This

authority does not obviate the requirement for a tenure waiver for reassignment when

a tenure agreement is in effect.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 143

Chapter 11

REPORTING

11.1. Reporting Requirements. The reporting guidelines below are applicable to all investment

activities. Programs follow DoD 5000 series for DoD and congressional reporting requirements.

11.2. Investment Fund Reporting.

11.2.1. Investment Fund Reporting. The PM, or equivalent, ensures all efforts with

investment funds AF RDT&E 3600 (Budget Activity [BA] 1 through BA7), SF RDT&E (e.g.,

3620), AF Procurement (e.g., 3010, 3011, 3020, and 3080), and SF Procurement (e.g. 3022)

use the Comprehensive Cost and Requirement System (CCaR) to manage and execute program

funds. Investment fund reporting is documented on the IML which is maintained by

SAF/AQX.

11.2.1.1. For investment funds, acquisition/PEO organizations use the CCaR to manage

and execute funds unless a waiver is granted from SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX (if a space

system).

11.2.1.2. The program or activity that has the funds included in the program baseline

reports the funds. Any funds outside of the baseline are reported by the activity with the

direct budget authority. Obligation and expenditure status is reconciled and published to

Executive CCaR to align with the MAR schedule.

11.2.1.3. CCaR use continues as long as investment dollar funding is available for

execution.

11.2.1.4. Program office must enter their approved and required budget and supporting

IMS with anticipated major deliverable milestones across the FYDP. The approved budget

is equal to the enacted appropriation adjusted for enacted rescissions and approved

reprogramming.

11.2.2. All activities required to be listed on the IML are also required to enter basic program

data into The CCaR and PMRT. The PM enters all mandatory data at initial entry onto the

IML, through CCaR, and updates prior to every major program milestone and following any

significant program change. The PM reviews, updates, and ensures consistency of program

data in CCaR and PMRT at least twice per year prior to the 1st of March and October or upon

request from SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX. The minimal data entry into the applicable acquisition

data system includes:

11.2.2.1. Name, program description, Program Element (PE), and Budget Program

Activity Code. Ensure consistent information between the AML/IML and the President’s

Budget submission.

11.2.2.2. Key Personnel (MDA, technology executive officer or PEO, and PM).

11.2.2.3. Contract Data (contract number [including task or delivery order(s), if

applicable], prime contractor name for each contract, and business segment).

144 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

11.3. Investment Master List, Acquisition Master List, and AML-Exempt activities.

11.3.1. Investment Master List. The IML includes both the AML and AML Exemptions.

Investment funds are mapped to an IML activity. Program offices map RDT&E, Procurement

investment funds, and program data by using the CCaR to manage and execute programs.

Refer to Figure 11.1 for information on the relationship between IML, AML, and AML-

Exempt categorization.

11.3.1.1. Additions and Changes. Submit all IML updates, additions, changes, and

exemption requests using the Comprehensive Cost and Requirement System Investment

Master List tool. SAF/AQX is the final approval authority for any IML additions.

SAF/AQXS final approval is waived for all projects in the Technology Executive Officer

(TEO) portfolio and AFRL/XP is the sole approver of R&DML projects captured in the

IML.

11.3.1.2. Review. Any organization requiring a determination on an activity that could be

considered either an AML or AML-Exempt activity should submit the activity to

SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX for categorization. SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX will review the

activity and determine categorization. Activities can be submitted for review at any phase

in the program life cycle; refer to the applicability paragraph for how categorization affects

program requirements.

11.3.1.3. Categories. All activities on the IML are categorized as either active or inactive

dependent upon whether investment funds are being executed. In addition, inactive AML

programs are categorized as either open or closed dependent on phase and ACAT.

11.3.1.4. FMS programs are not included on the IML; however, the PM for FMS programs

use the PMRT MAR to capture specified programmatic, contracting, and financial data.

Reference AFMAN 16-101 for guidance.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 145

Figure 11.1. IML, AML, AML-Exempt Relationship.

11.3.2. Acquisition Master List. The AML is the consolidated list of all DAF AAF programs

except Acquisition of Services (reference AFI 63-138 Acquisition of Services for reporting

acquisition of services) regardless of the categorization level or life cycle phase. Programs

will remain listed on the AML for all life cycle phases but will be categorized dependent upon

funding and acquisition status. Inclusion on the AML does not constitute program New Start

approval and does not constitute authority to commit, obligate, or expend funds.

11.3.2.1. The PEO ensures efforts meeting the following requirements are included on the

AML (waivable by the SAE):

11.3.2.1.1. MCA Pathway (ACATs), MTA Pathway, UCA Pathway, DBS Pathway

(BCATs), or SWA Pathway programs of any categorization responding to an approved

requirement; this includes an AF Form 1067 Modification Request, JUONs, JEONs,

UONs, or top down directed activities as identified in the AF/A5/7 Capability

Development Guidebooks, Vol 2 A-H. (T-1)

11.3.2.1.2. Joint programs led by the DAF or another DoD Component or Government

Agency with AF participation. (T-1)

11.3.2.1.3. Any effort or program designated as “special interest” by the DAE, SAE,

or an effort requested by the SAE. (T-1)

146 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

11.3.2.1.4. Programs with acknowledged SAPs elements include the non-SAP

components of the program on the AML.

11.3.2.1.5. MCA, MTA, UCA, DBS, and SWA programs in the O&S (or sustainment)

phase not previously on the AML. (T-1)

11.3.2.2. Each system development, upgrade, or modification with a separate APB

meeting the AML criteria is listed separately; however, activities with a separate APBs or

recurring activities (e.g., Lost Cost Modifications and Service Bulletins) sharing a funding

line may be combined into a single effort on the AML.

11.3.2.3. Modification programs are marked inactive once deployed and managed as part

of the overall system with an existing AML record. O&S requirements in DoDI 5000.91

and this publication are met at the system level.

11.3.3. Acquisition Master List Exemptions. AML exemptions capture other legitimate DAF

investment activities that are not acquisition programs.

11.3.3.1. Exemptions can be granted for replenishment spares procurements, spares

procurements, commodity procurements, capital equipment replacement, civilian pay,

developmental infrastructure, development of enterprise architectures/certifications,

technology projects, or as directed by SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX. SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX

will review and approve each request for exemption on a case-by-case basis.

11.3.3.2. Acquisition SAPs and technology efforts managed in accordance with DoDD

5205.07, Special Access Program (SAP) Policy, AFPD 16-7, and AFI 16-701 are exempt

from posting to the AML and IML. Programs with acknowledged SAPs elements solely

derived from unclassified funding shall include the non-SAP components of the program

on the AML unless otherwise directed. SAPs of mixed funding (i.e., classified, and

unclassified) shall consult SAF/AQL or SAF/SQX as appropriate.

11.3.4. Investment-funded programs and activities are added to the AML/IML in conjunction

with the timeframe established for MAR reporting contained in paragraph 11.4.

11.4. Management Acquisition Reports. The PM completes a MAR (previously referred to as

Monthly Acquisition Reports), using Then Year (TY) dollars, for all AML programs using any

pathway (except services pathway). (T-1) Management acquisition reporting refers to both

monthly and quarterly reports, depending on ACAT or equivalent level categorization as shown

in Table 11.1.

11.4.1. MARs are required quarterly for pre-Milestone A ACAT I and ACAT II programs.

Initiate reporting once President’s Budget documents are submitted to Congress (e.g., FY2020

activities justified in FY2020). (T-1) MAR submissions for pre-Milestone A programs are

only required to include the program assessment and top issues in preparation for program

initiation.

11.4.2. Post-Milestone A ACAT I and ACAT II MCA programs and MTA ACAT I equivalent

programs complete MARs monthly. (T-1) MCA programs initiate monthly reporting the

month following MDA Milestone A approval (or designation by the MDA at MDD that the

next milestone is Milestone B); MTA programs initiate monthly reporting with the first plan

identification submittal. (T-1)

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 147

11.4.2.1. Monthly program MARs include Program Assessment and Top Issues (should

be no more than 10); APB Data - Cost, Schedule, and Performance including PM estimate;

Funding Execution Data; Contract Information; Additional Assessments; Program

Schedule and Unconstrained 1537. (T-1)

11.4.2.1.1. Quarterly program MARs will consist of the same data as monthly MAR

except for the Unconstrained 1537 (unless requested by SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX).

(T-1)

11.4.3. MCA ACAT III AML programs with funding greater than $30 million in RDT&E

(3600) or $50 million in procurement (30XX) over the life of the program, MTA ACAT II and

III equivalent programs, and all DBS programs will complete quarterly MARs. (T-1) These

programs may be directed by the SAE to submit reports more frequently by exception.

11.4.4. Software pathway programs will complete semi-annual MARs concurrent with OSD

reporting; (T-1) Software pathway programs may be directed by the SAE to submit reports

more frequently by exception.

11.4.5. All Urgent Capability pathway programs, to include JUON, JEON, UON, and top-

down directed efforts, will complete a MAR no less than quarterly, regardless of dollar value.

(T-1)

11.4.6. The PEO or equivalent decision authority is responsible for reviewing and approving

each monthly MAR in their portfolio by the 10th working day of each month. (T-1)

11.4.7. Programs may only terminate or waive monthly acquisition reporting with the

approval of SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX. In the CCaR, programs can submit a change request for

termination of monthly acquisition reporting when 90 percent of items are delivered or 90

percent of the investment funds (RDT&E and Procurement) funding is expended. DBS efforts

should submit change requests for termination prior to reaching Full Deployment Decision (or

equivalent milestone). Programs are not required to submit a MAR after Full Deployment

Decision.

11.4.8. The PM will complete a monthly MAR for joint programs where USAF or USSF is

the lead Service. (T-1) For joint programs where the USAF or USSF is not the lead Service,

the MARs can be waived by SAF/AQX or SAF/SQX.

11.4.9. The PM of any program included in an OUSD(A&S) Integrated Acquisition Portfolio

Review (IAPR) will complete a monthly MAR regardless of type, pathway, dollar value,

percent delivered/expended, or milestone achieved. (T-1)

11.4.10. FMS programs will use the MAR to capture specified programmatic, contracting, and

financial data no less than quarterly consistent with AFMAN 16-101.

Table 11.1. Management Acquisition Reporting Frequency.

CATEGORIZATION

Monthly

MAR

Quarterly MAR

Other/Notes

ACAT ID

ACAT IB

148 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

CATEGORIZATION

Monthly

MAR

Quarterly MAR

Other/Notes

ACAT IC

ACAT II

ACAT III more than

$30M RDT&E or $50M

Procurement through

system

Middle Tier Pathway

(ACAT I Equivalent)

Middle Tier Pathway

(ACAT II or III

Equivalent)

Software Pathway

Semi-Annually

Urgent Capability

Pathway

No less than

quarterly

DBS Pathway

ACAT III less than

$30M RDT&E or $50M

Procurement through

system life (TY dollars)

Not required

UNLESS

meets

other criteria

Any programs on the

IAPR

Regardless of above

classification or

phase

DAF-Led Joint

Programs

FMS

As required in

AFMAN 16-101

1) May be directed by the SAE for more frequent reporting by exception.

2) Including but not limited to Joint, IAPR, or urgent capability.

11.5. Modification Management Reporting.

11.5.1. All modifications meeting the criteria for and managed using any acquisition pathway

follow the reporting, baseline and documentation requirements specified in this DAFI. (T-1)

The PM will collect modification data to include, at a minimum, cost, schedule, performance,

test, logistics, contracts, finance, risk, and earned value (as applicable) data and report through

the acquisition execution chain of authority for all other modification programs; reporting

frequency will be defined by the PEO. (T-1)

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 149

11.5.2. Permanent modifications are financed with investment funds per DAFMAN 65-605,

Vol. 1 and managed as acquisition pathway programs. Required acquisition pathway life cycle

management documentation and acquisition reporting (e.g., ADM, SEP, PPP, LCSP, MAR,

(not a complete list)) is either generated or updated to incorporate the modification effort as

described within this instruction. Where practical, existing documentation is updated to reflect

modification efforts rather than generating separate documentation.

11.5.3. Temporary modifications, whether for a mission or for T&E, will be appropriately

documented in the equipment status forms and appropriate historical records. Annotation will

be in the active portion of the records. (T-1) The temporary modification annotation remains

active until the equipment is returned to the original configuration. Refer to TO 00-20-2,

Maintenance Data Documentation, for additional guidance on documentation requirements.

11.6. Logistics Health Assessment Reporting. See Chapter 7.

11.7. Test and Evaluation Reporting. Refer to DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103, Chapter 7.

150 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Chapter 12

ACQUISITION INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS

12.1. Acquisition Industrial Preparedness Overview. 10 USC Section 4881, Defense

Industrial Reserve, and DoD Directive 4275.5, Acquisition and Management of Industrial

Resources, addresses the acquisition, modernization, expansion, construction, and use of both

severable and non-severable property as well as the retention, maintenance, and modernization of

DoD-owned real property and plant equipment. These responsibilities are assigned to USD(A&S)

and the Military Service Secretaries. Government Owned Contractor Operated DAF plants are

considered Industrial Facilities (as opposed to Military Installations) and consist of DAF-

controlled industrial property that may be operated in whole or in part by a contractor.

12.1.1. Per DAFPD 32-90, Real Property Management, SAF/IE has overall responsibility and

oversight of DAF-controlled real property. This responsibility excludes the acquisition and

management of industrial facilities (i.e., DAF Plants 4, 6, 42, and 44) which are the

responsibility of the SAF/AQ (per HAFMD 1-10), in collaboration with SAF/SQ, for space

systems and programs (per HAFMD 1-17).

12.1.2. SAF/AQ responsibility for industrial facilities is delegated to AFMC/CC, who can

further delegate this authority. AFMC executes this authority through AFLCMC’s Acquisition

Environmental and Industrial Facilities Division (AFLCMC/EZV).

12.1.3. This chapter addresses the guidelines and provisions of DoDD 4275.5, Acquisition and

Management of Industrial Resources, as it applies to acquiring, managing, and disposing of

the DAF-owned industrial facilities defense contractors use to support government contracts.

DAF Reserve and National Guard industrial preparedness activities are not addressed here.

12.2. Industrial Facilities. For the purposes of this chapter, Industrial Facilities are any DAF

owned, leased, or controlled real property that is sustained for current or future contractor use to

fulfill government research, development, test, evaluation, production, maintenance, or

modification contracts, or to store production machinery and equipment in support of such activity.

This includes all property (other than material, special tooling, military property, and special test

equipment), such as real property, buildings, structures, improvements, and plant equipment. Real

property includes land, buildings, structures, utility systems, improvements, and appurtenances. It

includes equipment attached to and made part of buildings and structures (such as heating systems)

but not movable equipment (such as plant equipment). Note: Industrial Facilities are a subset of

all DAF-controlled real property; however, the term “real property” is used to describe types of

industrial facilities.

12.2.1. AFMC/CC has the responsibility of managing all DAF-owned industrial facilities.

AFMC helps other MAJCOM/FLDCOMs acquire, manage, and dispose of DAF-owned

industrial facilities. AFMC in conjunction with SAF/AQX, provide determination of industrial

facilities the DAF needs to support its acquisition programs under the industrial property

account.

12.2.2. Funding for DAF industrial facilities is through investment, O&M, and lease proceeds.

MILCON is not used at Industrial Facilities. Guidance is further provided in the DoD Financial

Management Regulations. Other types of funding to include proceeds from the sale of excess

industrial facilities may be used for the upkeep of industrial facilities. Lead commands or other

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 151

DAF plant users will budget, and fund weapon system specific requirements needed at the

DAF plants.

12.2.3. Consistent with the practice established in DoD issuances concerning upkeep of real

property, most DAF directives dealing with real property upkeep (for example, the 32 series

of publications) specifically exclude property classified as industrial facilities. However, DAF

procedures for the upkeep of industrial facilities should be used as a guide.

12.3. Additional Responsibilities and Authorities.

12.3.1. AFMC/CC, or through their delegated authority will:

12.3.1.1. Function as the OPR for Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution of

industrial facilities. (T-1)

12.3.1.2. Approve capital type rehabilitation, construction, modernization, or

environmental compliance at DAF plants per DoDD 4275.5 thresholds. (T-0)

12.3.1.3. Ensure DAF plant requirements are prioritized, coordinated between program

offices, contractor operators and facilities management personnel and that proposed

requirements are evaluated against DoDD 4275.5 criteria. (T-0)

12.3.1.4. Maintain accountability of government property in accordance with DoDI

5000.64 and approves the disposal of AFPs using AFI 32-9004, Disposal of Real Property,

as a guide and locally developed disposal forms. (T-0)

12.3.1.5. Reviews requests for facility leases and staffs them to SAF/AQX for approval

and coordinates with SAF/AQX on all legislative initiatives involving AF plants. (T-1)

12.3.1.6. Ensure environmental impact analysis completion. (T-0) The environmental

protection program is implemented to obtain compliance, which may include federal, state,

and local laws and regulations.

12.3.1.7. Provide oversight of physical security and protection of DAF plants ensuring

antiterrorism and security surveys are conducted in accordance with contract/lease

agreements, and Industrial Facility applicable portions of DAFI 31-101, Integrated

Defense, AFMAN 31-101, Vol. 1, AFI 10-245 Supplement to DoDI 2000.16, Vol 1,

Antiterrorism Program Implementation, DoDM5100.76_DAFMAN31-101, Vol 2,

Physical Security of Sensitive Conventional Arms, Ammunitions and Explosives, and

associated AFMC supplements. (T-1) Facilities PCOs negotiate facilities contracts or

leases in accordance with applicable FAR requirements.

12.3.2. SAF/AQX shall:

12.3.2.1. Review and staff projects, proposed facility expansion packages, and other

efforts requiring SECAF, USD(A&S) approval or congressional notification as submitted

by AFMC or their delegated authority.

12.3.2.2. Review and approve projects, proposed facility expansion packages, and other

efforts not requiring SECAF, USD(A&S) approval or congressional notification as

submitted by AFMC or their delegated authority.

12.3.2.3. Screen excess facilities with other DoD components for non-industrial

requirements; and when necessary, develop and coordinate disposal reports for the House

152 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

and Senate Armed Services Committees for identified excess facilities using AFI 32- 9004

as a guide.

12.3.2.4. Review and approve budget and procurement documentation (P Series) prepared

by AFMC/CC, or their delegated authority.

12.3.2.5. Conduct continuous surveillance over the current use of, and future requirements

for, all government-owned industrial real property and plant equipment. SAF/AQX will

maximize utilization, facilitate proper allocation, and ensure proper and timely disposal

arrangement for excess facilities and facilities for which continued government ownership

is no longer necessary.

12.3.2.6. Approve the annual Financial Plan and delegates, to the responsible organization,

the authority to approve changes to projects in the financial plan.

12.3.3. The AF Civil Engineer Office (AF/A4C) shall:

12.3.3.1. Provide civil engineering assistance and advice regarding the AF plants and

approves Installation Characteristic Report per DAFI 32-9005, Real Property

Accountability.

12.3.3.2. Provide a copy of the report to the Assistant Secretary of the AF for Installations,

Environment, and Energy (SAF/IE) and to SAF/AQXE.

12.3.4. The AF Civil Engineer Center shall:

12.3.4.1. Provide civil engineering/environmental engineering/real property advisory

service, industrial property disposal processing and environmental restoration support

services at current and former DAF plants. (T-1)

12.3.4.2. Process orders using DAFI 32-9005 as a guide to record actual disposal and

adjust the industrial real property record after the DAF plant is disposed. (T-1)

12.3.4.3. Coordinate on the Installation Characteristics Report and forwards it to AF/A4

for approval. (T-1)

12.3.4.4. Validate the Automated Civil Engineer System Real Property (RP)/NexGen-

TRIRIGA year-end closeout report for industrial facilities and forward it to SAF/IE with a

copy to SAF/AQXE. (T-1)

12.3.4.5. Conduct and lead the Environmental Restoration Program at each active and

divested facility using Environmental Restoration Account funding and in accordance with

AFI 32-7020, Environmental Restoration Program. (T-1)

12.3.4.6. Delegate fire protection authority for DAF plants to an AFMC certified fire

protection engineer. (T-2)

12.4. Permissible Funding. AFMC/CC, or through their delegated authority will execute

financial management of assigned DAF plants. The DAF Industrial Preparedness Program,

Program Element 0708011F is the primary funding mechanism for AF industrial facilities with

lease revenues, proceeds from the sale of industrial facilities, and development or acquisition

programs using DAF plants also used as contributing sources. Funding for restoration projects at

DAF industrial facilities is provided by Environmental Restoration Program Element 078008F.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 153

12.5. Leases. Title 10 USC Section 2667, Leases: Non-Excess Property of Military Departments

and Defense Agencies, provides the SECAF authority to lease non-excess real or personal property.

This is a tool used to manage, maintain, and sustain the industrial base capability of DAF plants.

Such leases may provide for the alteration, repair, or improvement of the property by the lessee as

payment of part or all the consideration for the lease. The DAF uses this provision to ensure DAF

plants remain safe, suitable, and effective facilities for their intended purpose. HAFMD 1-10

delegates this authority to SAF/AQ, which is further delegated to SAF/AQX.

ANDREW P. HUNTER

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Acquisition, Technology & Logistics)

154 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Attachment 1

GLOSSARY OF REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

References

10 USC §§ 1701-1766, 1990 Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act (DAWIA)

10 USC § 2244a, Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or Disposal: Limitation on Expenditures

for Modifications

10 USC § 2460, Definition of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair

10 USC § 2464, Core Logistics Capabilities

10 USC § 2466, Limitations on the Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance of Materiel

10 USC § 2474, Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: Designation; Public-Private

Partnerships

10 USC § 2667, Leases: Non-Excess Property of Military Departments and Defense Agencies

2451, Defense Supply Management

2457, Standardization of equipment with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Members

3201, Full and Open Competition

3243, Encouragement of New Competitors: Qualification Requirement

10 USC §§ 3452-3458, Procurement of Commercial Products and Commercial Services

10 USC § 4172, Major Systems and Munitions Programs: Survivability Testing and Lethality

Testing Required Before Full-Scale Production

10 USC § 4214, Baseline Description

10 USC § 4252, Major Defense Acquisition Programs: Certification Required Before Milestone

B Approval

10 USC § 4292, Contracts: Limitations on Lead System Integrators

10 USC § 4321, Development of Major Defense Acquisition Programs: Sustainment of System to

Be Replaced

10 USC § 4324, Life-Cycle Management and Product Support

10 USC §§ 4371-4375, Cost Growth Unit Reports (Nunn-McCurdy)

10 USC § 4508, Contractor Performance of Acquisition Functions Closely Associated with

Inherently Governmental Functions

10 USC § 4862, Requirement to Buy Certain Articles from American Sources; Exceptions.

10 USC § 4863, Requirement to Buy Strategic Materials Critical to National Security from

American Sources; Exceptions.

10 USC § 4881, Defense Industrial Reserve

10 USC § 9016, Assistant Secretaries of the Air Force

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 155

22 USC § 2751, Arms Export Control Act

41 USC § 1702, Chief Acquisition Officers and Senior Procurement Executives

50 USC §§ 1052 and 2061, War and National Defense

EO 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 4 January 1979

EO 13990, Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the

Climate Crisis, 20 January 2021

EO 14057, Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, 13

December 2021

DoDI 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix, 12 April 2010

DoDI 2000.25, DoD Procedures for Reviewing and Monitoring Transactions Filed with the

Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), 16 December 2021

DoDI 2010.06, Material Interoperability and Standardization with Allies and Coalition

Partners, 29 July 2009

DoDI 2040.03, End Use Certificates (EUC), 15 July 2020

DoDI 3020.41, Operational Contract Support (OCS), 20 December 2011

DoDI 3100.08, The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP), 7 August 2012

DoDI 3150.09, The Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Survivability

Policy, 8 April 2015

DoDI 3200.12, DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program (STIP), 22 August 2013

DoDI 3200.19, Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) Human Effects Characterization, 17 May 2012

DoDI 3200.20, Scientific and Engineering Integrity, 26 July 2012

DoDI 3222.03, DoD Electromagnetic Environmental Effects (E3) Program, 25 August 2014

DoDI 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program (DSP), 31 March 2022

DoDI 4140.01, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Policy, 6 March 2019

DoDI 4140.73, Asset Physical Accountability Policy, 4 June 2021

DoDI 4151.19, Serialized Item Management (SIM) for Life Cycle Management of Materiel, 9

January 2014

DoDI 4151.20, Depot Maintenance Core Capabilities Determination Process, 4 May 2018

DoDI 4151.21, Public-Private Partnerships for Product Support, 21 November 2016

DoDI 4151.22, Condition Based Maintenance Plus for Materiel Maintenance, 14 August 2020

DoDI 4161.02, Accountability and Management of Government Contract Property, 27 April

2012

DoDI 4205.01, DoD Small Business Programs, 8 June 2016

DoDI 4245.14, DoD Value Engineering Program, 26 October 2012

156 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

DoDI 4245.15, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Management, 5

November 2020

DoDI 4630.09, Communications Waveform Management and Standardization, 23 November

2020

DoDI 4650.01, Policy and Procedures for Management and Use of the Electromagnetic

Spectrum, 9 January 2009

DoDI 4650.08, Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) and Navigation Warfare, 27

December 2018

DoDI 5000.02, Operation of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, 23 January 2020

DoDI 5000.60, Defense Industrial Base Assessments, 18 July 2014

DoDI 5000.64, Accountability and Management of DoD Equipment and Other Accountable

Property, 27 April 2017

DoDI 5000.64_DAFI 23-111, Accountability and Management of DoD Equipment and Other

Accountable Property, 6 December 2021

DoDI 5000.66, Defense Acquisition Workforce Education, Training, Experience, and Career

Development Program, 27 July 2017

DoDI 5000.67, Prevention and Mitigation of Corrosion on DoD Military Equipment and

Infrastructure, 1 February 2010

DoDI 5000.69, DoD Joint Services Weapon and Laser System Safety Review Processes, 9

November 2011

DoDI 5000.74, Defense Acquisition of Services, 10 January 2020

DoDI 5000.75, Business Systems Requirements and Acquisition, 2 February 2017

DoDI 5000.80, Operation of the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA), 30 December 2019

DoDI 5000.80_DAFI 63-146, Operation of the Middle Tier of Acquisition (MTA), 7 May 2021

DoDI 5000.81_DAFI 63-147, Urgent Capability Acquisition, 4 February 2021

DoDI 5000.82, Acquisition of Information Technology (IT), 21 April 2020

DoDI 5000.83_DAFI 63-113, Technology and Program Protection to Maintain Technological

Advantage, 8 March 2022

DoDI 5000.85, Major Capability Acquisition, 6 August 2020

DoDI 5000.85_DAFI 63-151, Major Capability Acquisition, 19 August 2022

DoDI 5000.86, Acquisition Intelligence, 11 September 2020

DoDI 5000.87, Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway, 2 October 2020

DoDI 5000.87_DAFI 63-150, Operation of the Software Acquisition Pathway, 11 August 2021

DoDI 5000.88, Engineering of Defense Systems, 18 November 2020

DoDI 5000.89, Test and Evaluation, 19 November 2020

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 157

DoDI 5000.90, Cybersecurity for Acquisition Decision Authorities and Program Managers, 31

December 2020

DoDI 5000.91, Product Support Management for the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, 4

November 2021

DoDI 5000.92, Innovation and Technology to Sustain Materiel Readiness, 5 July 2021

DoDI 5000.93_DAFI 63-149, Use of Additive Manufacturing, 6 January 2022

DoDI 5200.08, Security of DoD Installations and Resources and the DoD Physical Security

Review Board (PSRB), 10 December 2005

DoDI 5200.39, Critical Program Information (CPI) Identification and Protection Within

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RTD&E), 28 May 2015

DoDI 5200.44, Protection of Mission Critical Functions to Achieve Trusted Systems and

Networks (TSN), 5 November 2012

DoDI 5205.11, Management, Administration, and Oversight of DoD Special Access Programs

(SAPS), 6 February 2013

DoDI 5220.22, National Industrial Security Program (NISP), 18 March 2011

DoDI 5230.24, Distribution Statements on Technical Documents, 23 August 2012

DoDI 6055.07, Mishap Notification, Investigation, Reporting, and Record Keeping, 6 June 2011

DoDI 8320.03, Unique Identification (UID) Standards for Supporting the DoD Information

Enterprise, 4 November 2015

DoDI 8320.04, Item Unique Identification (IUID) Standards for Tangible Personal Property, 3

September 2015

DoDI 8320.06, Organization Unique Identification (OUID) Standards for Unique Identification

of External Department of Defense Business Partners, 26 September 2012

DoDI 8330.01, Interoperability of Information Technology (IT), Including National Security

Systems (NSS), 21 May 2014

DoDI 8500.01, Cybersecurity, 14 March 2014

DoDI 8510.01, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for DoD Information Technology (IT), 12

March 2014

DoDI 8520.03, Identity Authentication for Information Systems, 13 May 2011

DoDI 8523.01, Communications Security (COMSEC), 6 January 2021

DoDD 3000.09, Autonomy in Weapon Systems, 21 November 2012

DoDD 3150.01, Joint DoD-Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration

(DOD-DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Weapon Life Cycle Activities, 4 August 2016

DoDD 3150.02, DoD Nuclear Weapons Surety Program, 24 April 2013

DoDD 4275.5, Acquisition and Management of Industrial Resources, 15 March 2005

DoDD 5000.01, The Defense Acquisition System, 9 September 2020

158 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

DoDD 5134.09, Missile Defense Agency (MDA), 17 September 2009

DoDD 5205.07, Special Access Program (SAP) Policy, 1 July 2010

DoDD 5230.25, Withholding of Unclassified Technical Data from Public Disclosure, 6

November 1984

DoDD 5250.01, Management of Intelligence Mission Data (IMD) in DoD Acquisition, 22

January 2013

DoDM 3200.14, Principles and Operational Parameters of the DoD Scientific and Technical

Information Program (STIP): General Processes, Vol. 1, 14 March 2014

DoDM 4120.24, DoD Standardization Program (DSP) Procedures, 24 September 2014

DoDM 4140.01, Vol. 2, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Demand and

Supply Planning, 9 November 2018

DoDM 4140.01, Vol. 8, DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Procedures: Materiel Data

Management and Exchange, 10 February 2014

DoDM 4160.28, Vol. 1, Defense Demilitarization: Program Administration, 9 August 2017

DoDM 5000.04, Cost and Software Data Reporting, 7 May 2021

DoDM 5030.55_AFMAN63-103, DoD Procedures For Joint DoD-Department Of

Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA) Nuclear Weapon Life-Cycle

Activities, 26 January 2018

DoDM 5200.01V1_AFMAN16-1404V1, Information Security Program: Overview,

Classification and Declassification, 11 January 2021

DoDM 5200.01V3_DAFMAN16-1403V3, Information Security Program: Protection of

Classified Information, 12 April 2022

DoDM 5205.02, DoD Operations Security (OPSEC) Program Manual, 3 November 2008

DoDM 5220.22, Volume 2_AFMAN 16-1406, Volume 2, National Industrial Security Program:

Industrial Security Procedures for Government Activities, 8 May 2020

DoDM 5220.32, Volume 2, National Industrial Security Program: Procedures for Government

Activities Relating to Foreign Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI), 10 December 2021

DoD 4151.22-M, Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), 30 June 2011

DoD 5010.12-M, Procedures for the Acquisition and Management of Technical Data, 14 May

1993

DoD 5400.11-R, Department of Defense Privacy Program, 14 May 2007

DoD 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 2A:

“Budget Formulation and Presentation (Chapters 1-3)”, January 2011

DoD 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 2B:

“Budget Formulation and Presentation (Chapters 4-19)”, November 2017

DoD 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 3:

“Budget Execution – Availability and Use of Budgetary Resources”, January 2020

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 159

DoD 7000.14-R, Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation (FMR), Volume 4:

“Accounting Policy”, January 2016

HAFMD 1-10, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition), 2 September 2016

HAFMD 1-17, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Space Acquisition and Integration), 30

September 2022

HAFMD 1-26, Chief Information Dominance and Chief Information Officer, 5 February 2015

DAFPD 10-9, Lead Command / Lead Agent Designation and Responsibilities for United States

Air Force Weapon Systems, Non-Weapon Systems, and Activities, 25 May 2021

AFPD 14-4, Management of the AF ISR and Cyber Effects Operations Enterprise, 11 July 2019

AFPD 16-4, Accounting for Aerospace Vehicles at Units and Installations, 20 November 2018

AFPD 16-7, Special Access Programs, 21 November 2017

AFPD 17-1, Information Dominance Governance and Management, 12 April 2016

AFPD 23-1, Materiel Management, 7 September 2018

AFPD 24-6, Distribution and Traffic Management, 23 March 2018

DAFPD 32-90, Real Property Management, 20 April 2021

AFPD 62-6, USAF Airworthiness, 16 January 2019

AFPD 65-5, Cost and Economics, 18 December 2018

AFPD 90-18, Small Business Programs, 15 October 2018

AFI 10-503, Strategic Basing, 14 October 2020

AFI 10-601, Operational Capability Requirements Documentation and Validation, 27 April

2021

AFI 10-701, Operations Security (OPSEC), 24 July 2019

AFI 10-2607, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Survivability, 9 August 2018

AFI 11-215, Flight Manuals Program, 25 March 2019

AFI 16-110, US Air Force Participation in International Armaments Cooperation (IAC)

Programs, 18 September 2018

AFI 16-402, Aerospace Vehicle Programming, Assignment, Distribution, Accounting, and

Termination, 27 September 2019

AFI 16-601, Implementation of, and Compliance with, International Arms Control and

Nonproliferation Agreements, 7 August 2018

AFI 16-608, Implementation of, and Compliance with, Treaties Involving Weapons of Mass

Destruction, 7 September 2018

AFI 16-701, Management, Administration and Oversight of Special Access Programs, 18

February 2014

AFI 16-1001, Verification, Validation and Accreditation (VV&A), 29 April 2020

160 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

AFI 16-1005, Modeling & Simulation Management, 23 June 2016

AFI 16-1007, Management of Air Force Operational Training Systems, 1 October 2019

DAFI 16-1401, Information Protection Program, 3 February 2023

AFI 17-101, Risk Management Framework (RMF) for Air Force Information Technology (IT), 6

February 2020

AFI 17-110, Information Technology Portfolio Management and Capital Planning and

Investment Control, 23 May 2018

AFI 17-130, Cybersecurity Program Management, 13 February 2020

AFI 17-140, Architecting, 29 June 2018

DAFI 17-220, Spectrum Management, 8 June 2021

AFI 20-106_IP, Management of Aviation Critical Safety Items, 25 January 2006

AFI 20-110, Nuclear Weapons-Related Materiel Management, 4 June 2018

AFI 20-118, Instructions for the Interservicing of Technical Manuals and Related Technology

Program, 3 February 2016

DAFI 21-101, Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management, 16 January 2020

AFI 21-103, Equipment Inventory, Status and Utilization Reporting, 30 April 2020

AFI 23-101, Materiel Management Policy, 22 October 2020

DAFI 24-602 Vol. 2, Cargo Movement, 12 June 2019

AFI 25-201, Intra-Service, Intra-Agency, and Inter-Agency Support Agreement Procedures, 18

October 2013

AFI 32-7020, Environmental Restoration Program, 12 March 2020

AFI 32-9004, Disposal of Real Property, 24 September 2018

DAFI 32-9005, Real Property Accountability, 4 February 2020

AFI 33-322, Records Management and Information Governance Program, 28 July 2021

AFI 33-332, Air Force Privacy and Civil Liberties Program, 10 March 2020

AFI 36-1301, Management of Acquisition Key Leadership Positions, 23 July 2019

AFI 36-2100, Military Utilization and Classification, 7 April 2021

DAFI 36-2110, Total Force Assignments, 2 August 2021

AFI 51-401, The Law of War, 3 August 2018

AFI 51-1101, Acquisition Integrity Program, 4 October 2021

AFI 60-101, Materiel Standardization, 29 March 2019

AFI 60-106, International Military Standardization (IMS) Program, 3 May 2019

AFI 61-101, Management of Science and Technology, 14 March 2013

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 161

AFI 61-102, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology

Transfer (STTR) Programs, 16 November 2012

DAFI 61-201, Management of Scientific and Technical Information (STINFO), 30 November

2020

DAFI 62-601, Airworthiness, 10 June 2022

AFI 63-125, Nuclear Certification Program, 16 January 2020

AFI 63-138, Acquisition of Services, 30 September 2019

DAFI 63-140, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program and Air and Space Equipment Structural

Management, 6 August 2020

DAFI 63-145, Manufacturing and Quality Management, 4 December 2020

AFI 65-301, Internal Audit Services, 31 August 2018

AFI 65-501, Economic Analysis, 29 October 2018

AFI 65-508, Cost Analysis Guidance and Procedures, 6 December 2018

AFI 65-601, Vol. 1, Budget Guidance and Procedures, 24 October 2018

DAFI 90-160, Publications and Forms Management, 14 April 2022

AFI 90-802, Risk Management, 1 April 2019

AFI 90-1603, Studies Management and Registration, 27 September 2019

AFI 90-1801, Small Business Programs, 2 August 2018

DAFI 91-101, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program, 26 March 2020

AFI 91-202, The US Air Force Mishap Prevention Program, 12 March 2020

DAFI 91-204, Safety Investigations and Reports, 10 March 2021

AFI 91-205, Non-Nuclear Munitions Safety Board, 23 May 2018

DAFI 91-225, Aviation Safety Programs, 31 January 2022

DoDI 5000.89_DAFI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation, 9 December 2021

DAFMAN 10-703, Electromagnetic Warfare Integrated Reprogramming, 2 June 2021

AFMAN 11-202, Vol. 3, Flight Operations, 10 January 2022

AFMAN 13-204, Vol. 3, Air Traffic Control, 22 July 2020

AFMAN 14-403, Sensitive Compartmented Information Security and Intelligence, Surveillance,

and Reconnaissance Systems Cybersecurity and Governance, 3 September 2019

AFMAN 16-101, Security Cooperation (SC) and Security Assistance (SA) Management, 2

August 2018

AFMAN 17-1203, Information Technology (IT) Asset Management (ITAM), 18 May 2018

AFMAN 17-1302-O, Communications Security (COMSEC) Operations, 9 April 2020

AFMAN 17-1402, Clinger-Cohen Act (CCA) Compliance, 20 June 2018

162 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

AFMAN 20-116, Propulsion Life Cycle Management for Aerial Vehicles, 13 April 2022

AFMAN 21-113, Air Force Metrology and Calibration (AFMETCAL) Management, 29 April

2020

AFMAN 21-204, Nuclear Weapons Maintenance, 13 August 2019

DAFMAN 23-119, Government Furnished Property, 6 April 2022

AFMAN 23-122, Material Management Procedures, 27 October 2020

DAFI 31-101, Integrated Defense (ID), 25 March 2020

AFMAN 31-101 Vol. 1, Integrated Defense (ID) Planning, 25 March 2020

DoDM 5200.01, Vol. 3_AFMAN31-101, Vol 3, DoD Information Security Program: Protection

of Classified Information, 20 February 2020

DAFMAN 63-119, Mission-Oriented Test Readiness Certification, 15 April 2021

AFMAN 63-122, Depot Source of Repair Planning and Activation, 21 January 2020.

AFMAN 63-143, Centralized Asset Management Procedures, 18 December 2020

DoDI 5000.75_DAFI63-144, Business System Requirements and Acquisition, 26 January 2023

AFMAN 65-502, Inflation, 30 October 2018

AFMAN 65-506, Economic Analysis, 6 September 2019

DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1, Budget Guidance and Technical Procedures, 31 March 2021

DAFMAN 91-110, Nuclear Safety Review and Launch Approval for Space or Missile Use of

Radioactive Material and Nuclear Systems, 24 February 2022

DAFPAM 63-123, Product Support Business Case Analysis, 14 April 2022

DAFPAM 63-128, Integrated Life Cycle Management, 3 February 2021

AFPAM 63-129, Air System Development and Sustainment Engineering Processes and

Procedures, 3 February 2020

AEP-7, Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Contamination Survivability

Factors in the Design, Testing, and Acceptance of Military Equipment, 4 April 2012

AF Early Systems Engineering Guide, 31 March 2009

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2A, Capability Development Overview and

Operational Capability Requirements Governance, 23 November 2022

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2C, Capability Based Assessments (CBA)

and CBA-Like Studies, Vol 2C, 21 July 2022

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2D, JCIDS Document Development, October

2022

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2F, Middle Tier of Acquisition-Rapid

Requirement Guidebook, January 2023

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 163

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2G, Urgent Needs Process, Version 8.3, 28

October 2022

AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol. 2H, Modification Guidebook, February 2023

Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), 27 October 2021

DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control Planning Guidebook for Military Systems and

Equipment, Spiral 4, 4 February 2014

DoD Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Guidebook (SD-

22), 3 February 2021

DoD Guide for Achieving Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability, 3 August 2005

DoD Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook, 21 April 2020

DoD Open Systems Architecture Contract Guidebook for Program Managers (v. 1.1), October

2013

DoD Product Support Business Case Analysis Guidebook, 1 March 2014

DoD Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Cost Rationale Report Manual, 1 June 2009

DoD Risk, Issue, and Opportunity Management Guide for Defense Acquisition Programs, 11

January 2017

DoD Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance, April 2011

AFMCI 21-100, Depot Maintenance Management, 6 September 2018

Airworthiness Bulletin 325, Communications, Navigation, Surveillance/Air Traffic Management

Compliance Assessment Process, 3 November 2017

ASME Y14.47, Model Organization Practices, 18 February 2019

ASD-S1000D, International Specification for Technical Publications Utilizing a Common

Source Database, 1 August 2008

CJCSI 3318.01, Acquisition Intelligence-Requirements Annual Priorities and Risk Management

Framework, 30 April 2020

CJCSI 5123.01I, Charter of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and

Implementation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), 30

October 2021

CNSSI No 4001, Controlled Cryptographic Items, 7 May 2013

CNSSI No. 4003, Reporting and Evaluating Communications Security (COMSEC) Incidents, 16

June 2016

DIAI 5000.002, Intelligence Threat Support for Major Defense Acquisition Programs, 1

February 2013

DFARS, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement, 25 March 2020

Defense Acquisition Guidebook, 22 September 2020

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Current Edition

164 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

GEIA-STD-0009, Reliability Program Standard for Systems Design, Development, and

Manufacturing, 1 August 2008

ICD 501, Discovery and Dissemination or Retrieval of Information Within the Intelligence

Community, 21 January 2009

IEEE-15288, Systems and Software Engineering – System Life Cycle Processes, 5 May 2015

IEEE-15288.1, Standard for Application of Systems Engineering on Defense Programs, 5 May

2015

IEEE-15288.2, Standard for Technical Reviews and Audits on Defense Programs, 5 May 2015

Incorporating Test and Evaluation into Department of Defense Acquisition Contracts, 5

September 2019

Investment Master List (IML) User Guide, 25 April 2016

Integrated Product Support (IPS) Element Guidebook, 31 July 2019

Intelligence Community Directive 503, Intelligence Community Information Technology Systems

Security Risk Management, Certification and Accreditation, 15 September 2008

Joint Software Systems Safety Engineering Handbook, 27 August 2010

Manual for the Operation of the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS)

Manual, 31 August 2018

MIL-HDBK-61B, Configuration Management Guidance, Rev A, 7 February 2001

MIL-HDBK-237C, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects and Spectrum Certification

Guidance for the Acquisition Process, 17 July 2001

MIL-HDBK-244A, Guide to Aircraft/Stores Compatibility, 19 July 2019

MIL-HDBK-423, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Protection for Fixed and

Transportable Ground-Based C4 1 Facilities - Volume 1 - Fixed Facilities, 19 November 2019

MIL-HDBK-502A, Product Support Analysis, 8 March 2013

MIL-HDBK-513, Low Observable Integrity Program, 30 September 2010

MIL-HDBK-896A, Manufacturing Management Program Guide, 25 August 2016

MIL-HDBK-1763, Aircraft/Stores Compatibility: Systems Engineering Data Requirements and

Test Procedures, 15 June 1998

MIL-STD-130N, Identification Marking of U.S. Military Property, 17 December 2007

MIL-STD-188-125, Part 1-2, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse Protection (Ground-Based

C41 Facilities Performing Critical, Time Urgent Missions and Transportable Systems), (dates

vary per part)

MIL-STD-461G, Requirements for the Control of Electromagnetic Interference Characteristics

of Subsystems and Equipment, 11 December 2015

MIL-STD-464, Electromagnetic Environmental Effects, Revision C, 1 December 2010

MIL-STD-881F, Work Breakdown Structures for Defense Materiel Items, 6 October 2020

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 165

MIL-STD-882E, DoD Standard Practice for System Safety, 11 May 2012

MIL-STD-961, Defense and Program-Unique Specifications Format and Content, 1 August

2003

MIL-STD-1472H, Human Engineering, 15 September 2020

MIL-STD-1530D, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP), 31 August 2016

MIL-STD-1568D, Materials and Processes for Corrosion Prevention and Control in Aerospace

Weapons Systems, 31 August 2015

MIL-STD-1798C, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program, 8 August 2013

MIL-STD-1822, Nuclear Compatibility Certification of Nuclear Weapon Systems, Subsystems,

and Support Equipment, 11 January 2017

MIL-STD-2073-1E, Department of Defense Standard Practice for Military Packaging, 23 May

2008

MIL-STD-3023, High-Altitude Electromagnetic Pulse (HEMP) Protection for Military Aircraft,

21 November 2011

MIL-STD-3024, Propulsion System Integrity Program, Change 1, 13 July 2015

MIL-STD-3048B, Air Force Business Rules for the implementation of S1000D, 20 September

2018

MIL-STD 3056, Design Criteria for Chemical, Biological, and Radiological System

Contamination Survivability, 23 November 2016

MIL-STD-31000B, Technical Data Packages, 31 October 2018

MIL-STD-46855A, Human Engineering Requirements for Military Systems, Equipment, and

Facilities, 24 May 2011

NAS 410, Certification & Qualification of Nondestructive Test Personnel, 19 December 2014

NAS 411, Hazardous Materials Management Program, 30 September 2013

NAS 411-1, Hazardous Material Target List, 31 October 2016

OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, (Current Edition)

OMB Circular A-94, Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal

Programs, (Current Edition)

OSD Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Operating and Support Cost-Estimating Guide,

March 2014

Public Law 108-375, Section 141, Development of Deployable Systems to Include Consideration

of Force Protection in Asymmetric Threat Environment, 28 October 2004

SAE-AS6500, Manufacturing Management Program, 13 November 2014

SAE-EIA-649-1, Configuration Management Requirements for Defense Contracts, 20 November

2014

SAE-GEIA-STD-0007, Logistics Product Data, 6 November 2019

166 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

SAE TA-HB-0009A, Reliability Program Handbook, 3 May 2019

SAE TA-STD-0017, Product Support Analysis, 1 November 2012

SD-22, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages Guidebook, 29 January

2016

SD-15, Guide for Performance Specifications, 24 August 2009

Section 508, Americans with Disabilities Act (36 CFR Section 1194), 7 January 2017

TO 00-5-1, AF Technical Order System, 15 February 2019

TO 00-5-3, AF Technical Order Life Cycle Management, 16 March 2021

TO 00-5-15, Air Force Time Compliance Technical Order Process, 1 July 2020

TO 00-5-16, Computer Program Identification Number (CPIN) Management, 1 April 2019

TO 00-5-19, Security Assistance Technical Order Program, 15 February 2018

TO-00-20-2, Maintenance Data Documentation, 5 September 2019

TO-00-25-254-1, Comprehensive Engine Management System (CEMS) Engine Status,

Configuration and Time Compliance Technical Order Reporting Procedures, 15 May 2019

TO 00-35D-54, USAF Deficiency Reporting, Investigation, and Resolution, 15 April 2021

TO 00-105E-9, Aerospace Emergency Rescue and Mishap Response Information (Emergency

Services), 1 February 2006

Prescribed Forms

AF Form 1067, Modification Proposal

Adopted Forms

AF Form 63, Active Duty Service Commitment (ADSC) Acknowledgement Statement

DAF Form 679, Air Force Publication Compliance Item Waiver Request/Approval

DAF Form 847, Recommendation for Change of Publication

DD Form 1415-1, Reprogramming Action (Prior Approval Action)

DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report

DD Form 2888, Critical Acquisition Position Service Agreement

DD Form 2889, Critical Acquisition Position Service Agreement Key Leadership Position (KLP)

Abbreviations and Acronyms

A&S—Acquisition and Sustainment

ACAT—Acquisition Category

ACPINS—Automated Computer Program Identification Number System

ADSC—Active Duty Service Commitment

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 167

AEP—Allied Engineering Publication

AETC—Air Education and Training Command

AF—(U.S.) Air Force

AFFARS—Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

AAF—Adaptive Acquisition Framework

AFI—Air Force Instruction

AFLCMC—Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

AFMAN—Air Force Manual

AFMC—Air Force Materiel Command

AFNWC—AF Nuclear Weapons Center

AFOTEC—Air Force Operational Test & Evaluation Center

AFPAM—Air Force Pamphlet

AFPD—Air Force Policy Directive

AFRC—Air Force Reserve Command

AFRL—Air Force Research Laboratory

AIA—Aerospace Industries Association

ALC—Air Logistics Center

ANSI/EIA—American National Standards Institute/Electronic Industries Alliance

AML—Acquisition Master List

APDP—Acquisition Professional Development Program

AUPC—Average Unit Procurement Cost

CC—Commander

CCI—Controlled Cryptographic Item

CCaR—Comprehensive Cost and Requirement System

CDR—Critical Design Review

CFIUS—Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States

CI—Counterintelligence

CIP—Critical Intelligence Parameter

CIO—Chief Information Officer

CJCSI—Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction

COMSEC—Communications Security

CPIN—Computer Program Identification Number

168 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

CSAF—Chief of Staff of the Air Force

CTE—Critical Technology Element

CV—Vice Commander

DACM—Director, Acquisition Career Management

DAE—Defense Acquisition Executive

DAF—Department of Air Force

DAFI—Department of Air Force Instruction

DAU—Defense Acquisition University

DAWIA—Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act

DBS—Defense Business System

DD—Department of Defense

DFARS—Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

DIAI—Defense Intelligence Agency Instruction

DLM—Defense Logistics Manual

DMSMS—Diminishing Manufacturing Sources/Material Shortages

DoD—Department of Defense

DoDD—Department of Defense Directive

DoDI—Department of Defense Instruction

DOI—Director of Intelligence

DOT&E—Director, Operational Test and Evaluation

DPA—Defense Production Act

DRU—Direct Reporting Unit

DT&E—Developmental Test and Evaluation

EIA—Electronic Industries Alliance

EO—Executive Order

EPROM—Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory

ESOH—Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health

EUC—End Use Certificate

FAR—Federal Acquisition Regulation

FI—Foreign Intelligence

FLDCOM—Field Command

FMECA—Failure Mode, Effects and Criticality Analysis

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 169

FMR—Financial Management Regulation

FMS—Foreign Military Sales

FOA—Field Operating Agency

FOC—Full Operational Capability

FRACAS—Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System

FYDP—Future Years Defense Program

HAF—Headquarters Air Force

HNC—Cryptologic and Cyber Systems Division

HQ—Headquarters

IA—Information Assurance

IC—Intelligence Community

IEEE—Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

IGF—Inherently Governmental Function

IMS—Integrated Master Schedule

IML—Investment Master List

ISR—Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

IT—Information Technology

ITIPS—Information Technology Investment Portfolio Suite

ITRA—Independent Technical Risk Assessment

IUID—Item Unique Identification

JCIDS—Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System

JEON—Joint Emergent Operational Need

JUON—Joint Urgent Operational Need

KLP—Key Leadership Position

KPP—Key Performance Parameters

KSA—Key System Attributes

LRU—Line Replaceable Units

MAJCOM—Major Command

MAR—Management Acquisition Report (previously Monthly Acquisition Report)

MD—Mission Directive

MCA—Major Capability Acquisition

MDA—Milestone Decision Authority

170 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

MDAP—Major Defense Acquisition Program

MIL-HDBK—Military Handbook

MIL-STD—Military Standard

MRL—Manufacturing Readiness Level

MTA—Middle Tier of Acquisition

NAS—National Aerospace Standard

NC3—Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications

NEPA—National Environmental Policy Act

NIST—National Institute of Standards and Technology

NLW—Non-Lethal Weapons

NSS—National Security Systems

O&M—Operations and Maintenance

OMB—Office of Management and Budget

OPR—Office of Primary Responsibility

OSD—Office of the Secretary of Defense

OT&E—Operational Test and Evaluation

OUID—Organization Unique Identification

OUSD—Office of the Under Secretary of Defense

PAUC—Program Acquisition Unit Cost

PCA—Physical Configuration Audit

PEM—Program Element Monitor

PEO—Program Executive Officer

PESHE—Programmatic Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health Evaluation

PGI—Procedures, Guidance, and Information

PIT—Platform Information Technology

PM—Program Manager

PMRT—Project Management Resource Tools

POC—Point of Contact

PPP—Program Protection Plan

PRR—Production Readiness Review

PSM—Product Support Manager

RAMPOD—Reliability, Availability, Maintainability for Pods

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 171

RC—recommended change

RCM—Reliability Centered Maintenance

RDT&E—Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

REMIS—Reliability and Maintainability Information System

RFP—Request for Proposals

RMF—Risk Management Framework

ROM—Read-Only Memory

SAE—Service Acquisition Executive

SAF—Secretary of the Air Force

SAP—Special Access Program

SCI—Sensitive Compartmented Information

SD—Standardization Document

SECAF—Secretary of the Air Force

SFR—System Functional Review

SM—UNKNOWN

SPA—Single Point Adjustment

SSC—Space Systems Command

STD—System Training Device

STINFO—Scientific and Technical Information

STIP—DoD Scientific and Technical Information Program

STTR—Small Business Technology Transfer

T&E—Test and Evaluation

TCTOs—Time Compliance Technical Orders

TO—Technical Order

TRL—Technology Readiness Level

TSRA—Training System Requirements Analysis

TSN—Trusted Systems and Networks

UCA—Urgent Capability Acquisition

UID—Unique Identification

UON—Urgent Operational Need

U.S.—United States

USAF—United States Air Force

172 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

USC—United States Code

USSF—United States Space Force

VE—Value Engineering

Office Symbols

AF/A2/6—Deputy Chief of Staff, Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance and Cyber Effects

Operations

AF/A4—Deputy Chief of Staff, Logistics, Engineering, & Force Protection

AF/A5—Deputy Chief of Staff, Strategy, Integration and Requirements

AF/A5/7—Deputy Chief of Staff Requirements Integration and Strategy

AF/A8—Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans and Programs

AF/A8P—Directorate of Programming

AF/A10—Deputy Chief of Staff Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration

AF/A10P—Policy and Strategy Division

AF/JACQ—Acquisition, Fiscal Law and Litigation Division

AF/SE—Air Force Chief of Safety

AF/TE—Directorate of Air Force Test and Evaluation

DD(DT&E)—Deputy Director for Developmental Test and Evaluation

OUSD(R&E)—Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

OSD/DOT&E—Office of the Secretary of Defense, Director Operational Test and Evaluation

SAF/AQ—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics)

SAF/AAZ—Air Force Special Access Central Office

SAF/AQX—Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acquisition Integration

SAF/AQXS—Acquisition Capability Division

SAF/CN—Chief Information Officer (CIO)

SAF/FM—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Financial Management)

SAF/FMB—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget

SAF/FMBI—Budget Investment Directorate

SAF/FMC—Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cost and Economics

SAF/FML—Budget and Appropriations Liaison Directorate

SAF/GC—General Counsel of the Air Force

SAF/GCQ—Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Division

SAF/GCR—Contractor Responsibility and Conflict Resolution Division

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 173

SAF/IAP—Policy and Programs Directorate

SAF/IE—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Installations, Environment, and Logistics)

SAF/LL—Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Legislative Affairs)

SAF/SB—Office of Small Business Programs

SAF/SQ—Assistant Secretary for Space Acquisition and Integration

SAF/SQA—Director, Architectures, Science and Technology

SAF/SQS—Director of Capability Delivery

SAF/SQX—Director of Integration

SAF/SQXP—Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space Acquisition &

Integration

USD(A&S)—Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment

USD(I&S)—Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and Security

USD(R&E)—Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

USSF/SSC—Space Systems Command

Note: Refer to DAFPAM 63—128 and the Defense Acquisition Guidebook (DAG)for a list of

acquisition terms with definitions

174 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Attachment 2

MODIFICATION PROPOSAL PROCESS AND AF FORM 1067 DESCRIPTIONS

A2.1. Modification Proposal Process Overview. The AF Form 1067, Modification Proposal

Process starts with identification and documentation of a modification requirement and ends when

the proposal is certified and approved as described by the AF/A5R Requirements Development

Guidebook, Vol 2 and this DAFI. See Figure A2.1, for the AF Form 1067 process flow of

modification proposal process. A modification proposal is the document or combination of

documents needed for approval to initiate a modification action. The modification proposal

process consists of four steps: 1) request for action and organization validation, 2) lead and using

command validation, 3) the PM reviews and approves the technical requirements and solution, and

4) lead command certifies and subsequently the specified approval authority approves.

A2.2. Step 1, Request for Action and Organization Validation. In this step, the modification

requirements are defined and validated by the organization. Individuals (program offices,

operational units, sustainment activities, etc.) initiate a modification proposal by completing

Sections 1 through 10 of the AF Form 1067. (T-1)

A2.2.1. Temporary modifications requirements included in Section 10 of the AF Form 1067

include: number of units to be modified, total duration of the installed temporary modification,

and description of the user’s/PM’s/lead command’s plan for converting the temporary

modification into a permanent capability, or their plan for removing the modification from

affected articles. (T-2)

A2.2.2. Modification proposals developed in response to a UON or JUON include this

statement in Section 9 of the AF Form 1067 “This modification is needed to address a Quick

Reaction Capability” if the ADM is not attached. (T-3)

A2.2.3. Depending on the nature of the need and local procedures, the initiator may

recommend a solution in Section 10 of the AF Form 1067.

A2.2.4. After completing Sections 1-10, the initiator submits the AF Form 1067 to the

organization-level authority for validation. (T-2) The organization-level validation authority

completes Section 11 using procedures established by the parent

MAJCOM/FLDCOM/FOA/DRU or local instructions. The organization forwards the

validated AF Form 1067 to the parent MAJCOM/FLDCOM/FOA/DRU for further review and

action. Permanent capability modifications require a KPPs and KSAs Table in accordance

with the AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol 2. (T-2)

A2.3. Step 2, Using Command and Lead Command/Core Function Lead Validation. In this

step, the lead and using commands/FOA/DRU state the modification requirement is a valid need

that can be met by a materiel solution. (T-2) Commands may comment on a proposed solution if

one is provided, however validation of the need is not approval for a proposed materiel solution

and does not authorize implementation.

A2.3.1. The initiator’s parent MAJCOM/FLDCOM/FOA/DRU headquarters makes a

validation recommendation of the proposal on AF Form 1067 Section 12 in accordance with

established MAJCOM/ FLDCOM/FOA/DRU procedures. The using command forwards the

validated AF Form 1067 to the applicable lead MAJCOM/ FLDCOM/FOA/DRU or other

DAFPD 10-9 identified organization for further review and action. The lead

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 175

command/FOA/DRU or DAFPD 10-9 identified organization makes a validation

recommendation of the proposal. The lead command coordinates the modification proposal

with all affected using commands and supporting organizations, such as training and logistics

support units, and installation civil engineering and bioenvironmental engineering units. (T-2)

Lead commands/organizations forward all proposed safety modifications to the USAF or

USSF Chief of Safety for coordination and approval of the safety designation. (T-1) Once

validated, the lead command prioritizes the modification proposal for funding and

implementation. The lead command completes Sections 13 through 22 of the AF Form 1067

and forwards modification proposals designated for funding and implementation to the

applicable PM for initial technical evaluation, implementation planning, and cost estimation.

A2.3.2. For modifications involving multiple mission variants within a given asset design-

series that are assigned to multiple using commands (e.g., AC/C/EC/MC/HC/WC-130,

C/KC/RC/WC-135), each using command validates the modification proposal against assigned

assets, and the lead/using command responsible for the largest number of assets within the

given design-series will have overall responsibility for validating and approving the

modification proposal. If the modification proposal is ultimately approved, each using

command determines whether or not to implement the modification on its assigned assets.

Each using command attaches supporting documentation to the AF Form 1067 to record their

decisions and to provide an audit trail for configuration control purposes.

A2.4. Step 3, Program Manager Review and Approval of Technical Requirements and

Solution. The PM initiates a technical evaluation unless waived by the PEO. The Chief Engineer,

in support of the PM, determines preliminary technical impacts and systems engineering-related

requirements to implement the proposed modification (may be waived by the PM). Supporting

documentation is attached to the form. Such evaluations will include determination of the impacts

to the host weapon system/component’s technical baseline, as well as any operating certifications

or restrictions associated with the host weapon system/component, such as airworthiness

certifications; munitions carriage/employment certifications; ESOH requirements, risks, and

certifications; security certifications; cybersecurity; SEEK EAGLE; etc. This evaluation will also

determine the potential impacts to, and any corollary modification requirements for, training

systems/devices and intelligence or information-related systems and networks that may be required

to operate, maintain compatibility with, or sustain the proposed modification.

A2.4.1. The PM also determines the sustainment support needs associated with the proposed

modification, including system/product reliability, availability, maintainability, and

supportability impacts and requirements (may be waived by the PEO). The PM conducts life

cycle risk and ESOH risk assessments for the proposed modification and identifies any

necessary risk acceptance documentation, safety certifications, environmental assessments, or

statements that must accompany the modification in accordance with DoDI 5000.88, MIL-

STD-882E and this instruction. (T-0) The modified system(s) PESHE is updated to reflect

ESOH risk or hazard data identified. Refer to DAFPAM 63-128, for guidance on life cycle

risk management.

A2.4.2. The PM determines if the modification will involve or produce CPI; if CPI is

identified, update the PPP, security classification guide and Acquisition Security Database

consistent with guidance in DoDI 5000.91_DAFI63-113. The PM ensures this initial technical

evaluation encompasses all configuration items and external interfaces whose

functional/product baselines may be affected by the proposed modification (may be waived by

176 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

the PEO). The PM coordinates these initial technical and programmatic requirements with

other affected system/product management entities, such as Air Logistics Complex (ALC),

training program offices, technology development organizations, etc. (may be waived by the

PEO). The PM denotes the modification category (i.e., capability or sustainment modification)

in Section 39 of the AF Form 1067 and in applicable modification program plans. As part of

the initial technical evaluation of a proposed modification and in coordination with the lead

command, the PM develops a preliminary strategy to implement the modification. This

strategy will address the management approach to implementing the modification and include,

at a minimum, a top- level description of how the modification should be funded, developed,

tested, produced, fielded, and supported; and an estimated schedule for implementing the

modification (may be waived by the PEO). The PM coordinates with the cognizant contracting

officer and small business professional to evaluate any impact to contracts (may be waived by

the PEO).

A2.4.3. The PM develops formal cost estimates to implement the proposed modification in

accordance with procedures prescribed in AFPD 65-5, as well as the AFI and AFMAN 65-500

series publications and approved USAF and USSF cost estimating techniques. (T-1) This

estimate includes all costs associated with the development, operation, and sustainment of

modification throughout its expected life cycle; include should costs and affordability if

required by the pathway. Any cost estimates provided by commercial vendors or other

government agencies will be validated by the PM (may be waived by the PEO). For temporary

modifications, this estimate should include costs for host system de- modification and disposal

(as applicable). Additional cost estimating requirements are prescribed in AFPD 65-5,

applicable pathway guidance and 65- series publications, and this instruction.

A2.4.4. The PM attests to the feasibility of the proposed modification requirement by

including or appending the following statement in Section 39 of the AF Form 1067 “The

capability requirement(s) described in this modification proposal is (are) technically

achievable and executable within the estimated schedule and costs identified herein.” (T-1)

A2.4.5. The PM completes Sections 23 through 42 of the AF Form 1067 to provide the

completed technical evaluation, preliminary implementation strategy and schedule, and cost

estimates. The information is forwarded to the lead command and the SAF/AQ Capability

Directorate PEM, or SAF/SQ if space, to initiate or ensure appropriate funding actions are

taken. The PM also provides the lead command with any other specific recommendations

concerning the development, production, installation, testing, and sustainment requirements

associated with proposed modification. Depending on the complexity of the modification, the

maturity and availability of critical technology elements of the modification, and other external

factors such as the availability of funding, the PM may provide the lead command with

implementation courses of action that offer alternative or evolutionary approaches to satisfy

the operational requirement or stated need.

A2.5. Step 4, Lead Command Certification and Approval of Modification Proposal. The

lead command reviews the PM’s initial technical evaluation, implementation strategy and

schedule, and cost estimates, and then either approves the modification or returns it to the PM with

recommendation for changes to the proposed mod package. The lead command checks the

appropriate blocks in Part V and completes Sections 43 through 45 of the AF Form 1067. The

lead command obtains approval for temporary and permanent modifications in both the capability

and sustainment categories. Once the modification is fully approved, funded, and designated for

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 177

implementation, the lead command and PM revise and coordinate a final implementation strategy

with affected using commands, support and sustainment organizations, and other stakeholders

associated with the modification. Once all management reviews and approvals are completed, the

modification proposal will be catalogued and maintained in accordance with applicable records

management requirements. Maintain modification proposal documents to record the user’s

requirement and configuration control throughout the modified asset’s life cycle.

A2.5.1. Lead commands coordinate the financing for validated and approved modification

proposals with the PM and SAF/AQ or SAF/SQ capability directorate PEM with cognizance

over the affected system, subsystem, or item. The lead command, PM, and SAF/AQ or

SAF/SQ capability directorate PEM ensures modification requirements are funded as

prescribed in AFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1 and as documented in approved RDT&E Program

Budget Exhibits (R-1), Procurement Program Budget Exhibits (P-1/P- 3A).

A2.5.2. Modification requirements financed with investment funds described in DAFMAN

65-605 Vol. 1 include but are not limited to development engineering data, modification

engineering data, and installation engineering data; procurement and installation of

modification kits; support equipment required to sustain the modified configuration;

modification of equipment owned by an RDT&E organization used in RDT&E; and embedded

information processing equipment and software.

A2.5.3. Modification programs may involve the use of multiple appropriation types in order

to implement the modification. Different appropriations may be necessary to fund separate

and distinct tasks associated with the modification. For instance, RDT&E funds will often be

necessary to design and test the modification, while procurement funds are often required to

produce and install the modification. Modification programs will comply with full funding

policy detailed in DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1 and DoD 7000.14-R, Vol. 2A, Ch. 1. (T-0)

A2.5.4. Any modification program or project that has not been previously justified to and

approved by Congress during the appropriations process for the fiscal year involved is

considered a New Start. When a determination has been made that a modification proposal

meets New Start criteria, Congress must be notified via either a letter of notification or a

completed Department of Defense Form 1415-1. (T-0) Modifications that result from FAA -

issued Service Bulletins are also considered New Starts if they are not consistent with the

“Service Bulletin” budget line-item materials provided to Congress. Refer to DoD 7000.14-

R, Vol. 3, Ch. 6 for specific requirements, processes, and stipulations associated with New

Start notifications.

A2.5.5. Individual modifications funded in the Low-Cost Modification line generally satisfy

an unforeseen requirement for the entire weapon system inventory/fleet that is estimated to

complete within one year. Total funding for Low-Cost Modifications are consistent with

DAFMAN 65-605, Vol. 1.

A2.6. AF Form 1067 Description.

A2.6.1. PART I, REQUEST FOR ACTION. Sections 1-11 are required and will be completed

prior to forwarding the modification proposal to using command validation authority (may be

waived by the PEO). Sections 1-10 are completed by the initiator and Section 11 is completed

by the submitting organization’s approval authority. Reference Table A2.1for details.

178 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Table A2.1. Part I, Request for Action.

Section

Description

Instructions

Page

Enter the appropriate number pages (total) in the

submission.

Date

Enter the date of form initiation

Section 1

Initiator

Information

Enter the name, grade, office symbol, mailing address and

Defense Switching Network (DSN) number of the

initiating individual.

Section 2

Initiator’s POC

Organization

Information

Enter the mailing address and DSN of the submitting

organization’s POC for AF Forms 1067 (normally the unit

product improvement manager).

Section 3

Using Command

HQ POC

Information

Enter the office symbol, mailing address, and DSN of the

initiators using command/agency headquarters (HQ) POC

for processing AF Forms 1067.

Section 4

Title

Enter the title that best defines/describes the addressed

need/requirement

Section 5

Organization

Control Number

Enter the control number assigned by the submitting

organization’s POC. If none, leave blank

Section 6

Other Numbers

Use this block to enter any other identifying number. If

none, leave blank. (Note: TCTO, material improvement

program (MIP), engineering change proposal (ECP) and

modification (Mod) numbers are entered in Section 24.)

Section 7

Affected

Configured

Item/Systems

A. Enter the Mission Design Series, Type Mission Series,

or the Configured End Item Identification for other

weapon systems (e.g., AN/APN-59, or CPIN).

1. If all series of the system are affected, cite only the

Mission and Design: (e.g., F-15)

2. If all Mission Design Series’ will not fit, show the one

with the highest logistic support priority (LSP) in this

block and list all other Mission Design Series on an

attached continuation page.

3. If the modification affects multi-systems, enter the

system that has the highest LSP and list all other weapon

systems or end items affected by the modification on an

attached continuation page.

B. Enter work unit code of affected Configuration Item

C. Enter National Stock Number of affected

Configuration Item.

D. Enter standard reporting designator code, as applicable

E. Enter nomenclature of affected Configuration Item.

F. Use other to specify any additional identifier as

needed.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 179

Section

Description

Instructions

Section 8

Purpose:

State the deficiency to be corrected or the need to be

satisfied by the proposal and what the expected result

will/should be. If known by field level initiators or if form

is initiated by SM personnel, include:

A. Current and projected mean time before maintenance

actions (MTBMA)-mission essentiality identification code

(MEIC) for all affected line replaceable units (LRU) (For

engines: MEIC for all recoverable items affected by

modification at highest indenture level below engine.)

(MEIC is applicable to all but structural modifications.)

B. Number of mission capable hours, both current and

projected, if applicable.

C. Current unscheduled removal rate of equipment, and

projected removal rate after modification, if applicable.

D. Current or projected mission aborts (before flight

aborts, in flight aborts, or total aborts - per assigned

Mission Design Series sortie generation requirements).

E. If unmodified system LRUs are resulting in excessive

maintenance hours or extravagant spares requirements,

show estimated number of maintenance hours being

expended (with dollar value of those hours shown in

parenthesis) or dollar value of excess spares requirement,

to include one year’s demand history to reflect increased

spares consumption.

Section 9

Impact

State the impact of not correcting the deficiency or

satisfying the need specified in Section 8.

Section 10

Constraints/Assu

mptions/Propose

d Solutions

State proposed solutions, constraints or assumptions and

recommend modification type (Permanent, Safety, T-1, or

T-2). Attach technical/engineering data package

documentation including but not limited to sketches,

drawings, diagrams, etc. If being completed by SM

personnel, the following information should be included.

For temporary modifications, identify the total number of

units to be modified and the duration/date the units will be

returned to their original configuration. (You are not

limited to just this information.)

A. Development Status - If an ECP has been received,

give date received or if an operational change proposal

(OCP) is being developed, give status. If product

reliability and maintainability related engineering has been

accomplished, explain here. If no ECP/OCP required,

state why. State whether flight test is required and, if

required, anticipated length of time required.

180 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Section

Description

Instructions

B. Contracting Requirements - State whether modification

will be contractually procured or organically assembled or

a combination of the two. If contract will be sole source,

give contractor’s name.

C. Risk Factor - Identify areas of risk associated with the

proposed requirement with emphasis on highest risk.

Section 11

Organization

Validation

After the individual designated/authorized to validate the

proposal performs a quality review of the AF Form 1067

to ensure all initiator required blocks are complete, the

validation authority will check the appropriate block (A

through C), and completes blocks D through F

Date Received:

Enter the date the proposal is received by the organization

for validation request approved, forward for using

command validation.

A. Proposed request disapproved, forward to initiator

POC.

B. Proposal returned to initiator POC for additional

information

C. Enter the date signed.

D. Type or print name, grade, title, DSN of validating

official or designated representative.

E. Signature of organization validating official or

designated representative.

A2.6.2. PART II, USING COMMAND VALIDATION: Section 12 is to be completed by

using command/Air National Guard or equivalent agency headquarters personnel. If the using

command/agency is the lead command, proceed to Part III, Section 13. See Table A2.2 for

detailed instructions.

Table A2.2. Part II, Using Command Validation.

Section

Description

Instructions

Section 12

Using Command

Validation

The individual designated/authorized to validate the

proposal for further processing will check the appropriate

block (A through C) and complete blocks D through H.

Date Received:

Enter the date the proposal is received from the initiating

organization.

A. Proposed request approved, forward for using

command/agency validation.

B. Proposed request disapproved. If disapproved, rational

for this decision must be returned to the originating

organization

C. Proposal returned to initiator POC for additional

information

D. If the using command/agency is not the lead command

for the affected weapon system/Configuration Item, check

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 181

Section

Description

Instructions

this block and forward to the appropriate lead command.

See DAFPD 10-9 for listing of assigned weapon system

lead commands.

E. Enter using command/agency tracking number.

F. Enter the date signed.

G. Type or print name, grade, title, DSN of using

command/agency designated validation authority.

H. Signature of using command/agency designated

validation authority.

A2.6.3. PART III – LEAD COMMANDVALIDATION: Sections 13 – 22 are required fields

and completed by lead command Headquarters’ personnel as detailed in Table A2.3.

Table A2.3. Part III, Lead Command Validation.

Section

Description

Instructions

Date Received:

Enter the date the proposal was received from the using

command/agency

Section 13

Lead Command

Action Officer

Enter the name, grade, office symbol, mailing address, and

DSN of the evaluating action officer.

Section 14

Through

(Optional

Routing):

Enter the mailing address for other using

commands/agencies as applicable.

Section 15

Single Manager

Office

Enter the office symbol, mailing address, and DSN of the

Single Manager POC for processing AF Forms 1067.

Section 16

Modification

Type:

Mark one of the appropriate blocks to identify the

proposed type of modification as defined in this DAFI.

Section 17

Lead Command

Control Number

Enter the tracking control number.

Section 18

Lead Command

Remarks

Enter any known constraints or assumptions that must be

addressed during the next level(s) of evaluation. For

temporary modifications, address validation of the

requirement in terms of the total number of units to be

modified and the duration/date the units will be returned to

their original configuration.

Section 19

Lead Command

Validation

Authority

The individual designated/authorized to validate the

proposal will check the appropriate block.

A. Validated Request: Proposal is a valid

need/requirement.

B. Disapproved Request: Proposal is not a valid

need/requirement. If disapproved, rational for this

decision must be returned to the using command/agency

or originating organization.

182 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Section

Description

Instructions

Section 20

Validation

Authority

Type or print name, grade, title, DSN of lead command

designated validation authority

Section 21

Signature of

Lead Command

Signature of designated validation authority.

Section 22

Date

Enter the date signed.

A2.6.4. PART IV, SINGLE MANAGER REVIEW AND APPROVAL. Sections 23 - 42 are

required fields and completed by the PM as detailed in Table A2.4.

Table A2.4. Part IV, Single Manager Review and Approval.

Section

Description

Instructions

DATE

RECEIVED:

Enter the date the proposal was received from the lead

command.

Section 23

SM Action

Officer Info

Enter the name, grade, office symbol, mailing address and

DSN of the SM evaluating action officer.

Section 24

Center Control

Numbers

Enter assigned numbers, if applicable. If none assigned,

leave blank. Enter any other applicable identifier(s) as a

continuation of this block on an attached continuation

page.

A. Center MIP No:

B. ECP No:

C. TCTO No:

Section 25

Total BP/EEIC

Enter the total estimated cost by appropriation budget

codes. (Example: $3.5M BP1100, $4.5M BP2100, $1.0M

3400, $.5M 0350, EEIC 583, etc.)

Also Affects: Check the appropriate block for each

affected item (for permanent modifications only). Identify

each affected supporting system on a continuation sheet

(for example, when training aids are affected, provide

trainer flight equipment number, maintenance trainer

identifying number, and part number as applicable.). If

“OTHER” is checked, identify any significant impacts not

otherwise covered here and explain on a continuation

sheet. When system-training devices (STDs) are affected,

provide on a continuation sheet, the information needed as

it relates to the modification of the applicable STDs.

Section 26

Nr of CIS

Affected

Enter the total number of configured items to be modified

(i.e., black boxes, aircraft, etc.).

Section 27

Total Kits

Needed

Enter the total number of kits or applicable units proposed,

including spares.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 183

Section

Description

Instructions

Section 28

Also Affects

Check the appropriate block for each affected item (for

permanent modifications only). Identify each affected

supporting system on a continuation sheet (for example,

when training aids are affected, provide trainer flight

equipment number, maintenance trainer identifying

number, and part number as applicable.). If “OTHER” is

checked, identify any significant impacts not otherwise

covered here and explain on a continuation sheet. When

STDs are affected, provide on a continuation sheet, the

information needed as it relates to the modification of the

applicable STDs.

Support Equipment:

Aircrew Training:

Training Devices/Visual Aids (Maint): Tech Data:

Spares:

Software:

Other:

If STDs are not affected, include on continuation page the

appropriate certification (indicate why modification to

STDs is not desired or needed) and include certifying

official’s name, grade, and office symbol. Note: STD is

an all-encompassing term. It refers to mission simulators,

flight simulators, aircrew or missile crew or cockpit

procedures trainers, as well as maintenance training

devices, visual aids, simulation devices, operational

support equipment, spares, and video tapes, etc.; included

in mobile maintenance training sets used to support the

field training detachments, and resident training

equipment that must be maintained to reflect related

weapon systems or equipment configuration. Complete

staffing and coordination are required to determine if the

supporting systems are affected.

Section 29

Kit or Unit cost:

Enter the cost for a single kit (group A/B only).

Section 30

Total Cost

Enter the total estimated cost of the proposed solution as

outlined in the BCI.

Enter the estimated engineering and kit acquisition lead-

time. Compute lead-time by totaling initial admin and

initial production estimates: (Entries to be in months)

Section 31

Lead Time

Enter the estimated engineering and kit acquisition lead-

time. Compute lead-time by totaling initial admin and

initial production estimates: (Entries to be in months)

184 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Section

Description

Instructions

A. Initial Admin: The number of months from initiation of

the requirement to production contract award date or

obligation acceptance by the appropriate directorate.

“Admin” in this case includes time for engineering and

other acquisition processes.

B. Initial Production: The number of months from contract

award date or document obligation/ acceptance date

through the date of completion of the TCTO verification

process

Section 32

Installation:

Begin and

complete

Enter the dates, by FY and quarter (YYYY/QTR), for

projected initiation of production installs and completion

of final installations.

Section 33

Level of

Accomplishment

Check the appropriate block indicating the recommended

level of accomplishment (i.e., user (organizational), depot

(organic or contract) or both (both is to be used if the

commodity will be modified at depot level and installed

into the aircraft or major end item by the user or

organizational level)). If the level of accomplishment is

“OTHER” identify specifics in Section 39 or on attached

continuation sheet

Section 34

User Work Hrs

Enter the number of estimated user man-hours needed to

perform the modification on one Configuration Item.

Section 35

Depot Work Hrs

Enter the number of estimated depot man-hours needed to

perform the modification on one Configuration Item.

Section 36

Total Work Hrs

Enter the number of estimated man-hours needed to

accomplish the modification on all Configuration Items.

Section 37

Manufacturer

Enter the name of the manufacturer. This normally

applies when an ECP is involved, since the ECP is

prepared by the manufacturer. If unknown, leave blank.

Section 39

Engineering

Review

Recommend-

action(s)

Provide adequate justification appropriate with

engineering evaluation decision. For proposals which

have approved engineering solutions, the SM will provide

enough detail for the lead command to make an

assessment of the proposed solution for lead command

certification. The SM or designated representative will

check the appropriate block indicating approval or

disapproval of the SM review. If disapproved, the SM

provides the lead command with rational for this decision.

Include the modification type (i.e., capability or

sustainment) Note: SM approval does not constitute

authorization to install the modification until funded and

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 185

Section

Description

Instructions

lead command approval to proceed (Sections 44 through

48).

Section 40

Single Manager

Type or print the name, grade, and title, DSN of the SM or

designated representative.

Section 41

Signature

Signature of the PM or designated representative.

Section 42

Date

Enter the date signed.

A2.6.5. PART V, LEAD COMMAND CERTIFICATION ANDAPPROVAL. Sections 43

through 47 are required and completed by the lead command that is assigned the responsibility

for the applicable affected configured item(s) as detailed in Table A2.5. The lead command

designated certification/approval authority will check the appropriate block indicating

Modification Approval or Disapproval. Note: Do not use the block MNS/ORD to be

developed. If approved, using command/agency (if applicable) or the originating organization

coordinates with the PM for specific installation documentation and required certifications that

accompany the modification. If disapproved, the lead command provides the using

command/agency (if applicable) and the originating organization with the rational for this

decision. Forward applicable Modification Proposals to AF/A5/7 as specified in applicable

10-series AFIs or the AF/A5/7 Capability Development Guidebook, Vol 1-5.

Table A2.5. Part V, Lead Command Certification and Approval.

Section

Description

Instructions

Section 43

Lead Command

Authority

Type or print name, grade, and title, DSN of the lead

command designated certification/approval authority.

Section 44

Signature

Signature of the lead command designated

certification/approval authority.

Section 45

Date

Enter the date signed

186 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Figure A2.1. AF Form 1067 Process Flow.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 187

188 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 189

Attachment 3

LIFE CYCLE RISK MANAGEMENT RISK MATRIX DEFINITIONS

Figure A3.1. Life Cycle Risk Management Risk Matrix.

Table A3.1. Standard Consequence Criteria – Performance.

Level

Likelihood

Percent Probability of

Occurrence

Near Certainty

81-99

Highly Likely

61-80

Likely

41-60

Low Likelihood

21-40

Not Likely

5-20

190 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Table A3.2. Standard Consequence Criteria – Schedule.

Level

Standard Consequence Criteria - Performance

Minimal consequence to technical performance or supportability but no overall

impact to the program success. A successful outcome is not dependent on this

issue; the technical performance goals or technical design margins will still be met.

Minor reduction in technical performance or supportability, can be tolerated with

little impact on program success. Technical performance will be below the goal

or technical design margins will be reduced, but within acceptable limits.

Moderate shortfall in technical performance or supportability with limited impact

on program success. Technical performance will be below the goal but approaching

unacceptable limits; or technical design margins are significantly reduced and

jeopardize achieving the system performance threshold values.

Significant degradation in technical performance or major shortfall in supportability

with a moderate impact on program success. Technical performance is

unacceptably below the goal; or no technical design margins available and system

performance will be below threshold values.

Severe degradation in technical performance or supportability; will jeopardize

program success; or will cause one of the triggers listed below (Note 1)

Note 1: Apply to equivalent decision point or term if not MCA. Any root cause that, when

evaluated by the cross-functional team, has a likelihood of generating one of the following

consequences is rated at Consequence Level 5 in Performance:

-Will not meet KPP Threshold

- Critical Technology Element (CTE) will not be at TRL4 at Milestone A

- CTE will not be at TRL6 at Milestone B

- CTE will not be at TRL 7 at Milestone C

- CTE will not be at TRL 8 at the Full-rate Production Decision point.

- MRL* will not be at 8 by Milestone C

- MRL* will not be at 9 by Full-rate Production Decision point.

- System availability threshold will not be met.

* MRLs will be calculated IAW the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Assessment Deskbook.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 191

Table A3.3. Standard Consequence Criteria – Cost.

Level

Standard Consequence Criteria - Schedule

Negligible program or project schedule slip

Schedule slip, but:

Able to meet milestone dates (e.g., A, B, and C) and other key dates (e.g., CDR,

FRP, FOC) Does not significantly decrease program total float and

Does not impact the critical path to program or project completion date

Schedule slip that requires closely monitoring the schedule due to the

following: Impacting the ability, but still able to meet milestone dates (e.g., A,

B, and C) or other key dates (e.g., CDR, FRP, FOC)

Significantly decreasing program total float

Impacting the critical path to program or project completion date

Schedule slip that requires schedule changes due to the following:*

Significantly impacting the ability to meet MS dates (e.g., A, B, and C) or other

key dates (e.g., CDR, FRP, FOC)

Significantly impacting the ability to meet the program or project completion date

Schedule slip that requires a major schedule re-baselining due to the following:*

Failing to meet milestone dates (e.g., A, B, and C) or other key dates (e.g., CDR,

FRP, FOC)

Failing to meet the program or project completion date

* Exhibit awareness to exceeding 10 USC Section 4371-4375 (Nunn-McCurdy threshold

breach for schedule).

Note: Impact varies based on 1) The schedule slips relative to the remaining duration in

the program or major milestones; amount of remaining time to work-around the impact;

2) The impact of the slip with respect to key resources.

Level

Standard Consequence Criteria – Cost (A-B Refers to milestone

designation)

For A-B Programs: <1% increase from milestone A or last approved Development

or Production cost estimate.

For Post-B and Other Programs: <1% increase from milestone A or last approved

Development or Production cost estimate.

192 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

For A-B Programs: 1% to <3% increase from milestone A or last approved

Development or Production cost estimate.

For Post-B and Other Programs: 1% to <3% increase from milestone A or last

approved Development or Production cost estimate.

For A-B Programs: 3% to <5% increase from milestone A or last approved

Development or Production cost estimate.

For Post-B and Other Programs: 3% to <5% increase in Development or >1.5%

increase to Program Acquisition Unit Cost (PAUC) or Average Procurement Unit

Cost (APUC) from last approved baseline estimate or >3% increase to PAUC or

APUC from original baseline. (1/10 of 10 USC Section 4371-4375 (Nunn-

McCurdy) “significant” breach).

For A-B Programs: 5% to <10% increase from milestone A or last approved

Development or Production cost estimate.

For Post-B and Other Programs: 5% to <10% increase in Development or >3%

increase to PAUC or APUC from last approved baseline estimate or >6% increase

to PAUC or APUC from original baseline. (1/5 of 10 USC Section 4371-4375

(Nunn-McCurdy) significant breach).

For A-B Programs: >10% increase from milestone A or last approved

Development or Production cost estimate.

For Post-B and Other Programs: >10% increase in Development or >5% increase

to PAUC or APUC from last approved baseline estimate or >10% increase to

PAUC or APUC from original baseline. (1/3 of 10 USC Section 4371-4375

(Nunn-McCurdy) significant breach).

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 193

Figure A3.2. Translation of MIL-STD-882E Risk Matrix to the OSD Risk Management

Guide Matrix.

Note: MIL-STD-882E includes probability level “F” for “eliminated” ESOH risks that are

“incapable of occurrence.” ESOH risks with probability level F should not be translated to the

DoD Acquisition Risk Management program risk matrix.

194 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Attachment 4

DETERMINATION FOR NATIONAL SECURITY SYSTEMS (NSS)

A4.1. Overview Designation. Protection of critical information continues to be a challenge for

DoD. Even with the increased emphasis to protect DAF information that resides in information

and communication technology systems and equipment, loss of defense information continues at

an unacceptable rate, resulting in a call for review of all information systems and the cybersecurity

protection these systems need to ensure cyber hygiene and resiliency of their system. In

accordance with HAFMD 1-26, the component CIO ensures NSS interoperability and NSS federal

reporting.

A4.2. NSS Designation Review. In accordance with AFI 17-110, Information Technology

Portfolio Management and Capital Planning and Investment Control, NSS designations are

reviewed at least annually for continuation, modification, or termination recommendations. (T-1)

A4.3. NSS Determination Process. Per DoD guidance to leverage National Institute of

Standards and Technology (NIST) processes whenever possible, the DAF NSS determination

process aligns to NIST Special Publication 800-59, Guideline for Identifying an Information

System as a National Security System.

A4.3.1. NSS Designation has potential impacts on numerous system requirements and

activities. Some of these include – but are not limited to – application of the RMF, CJCSIs,

CNSSIs, and requirements specified in JCIDS, Initial Capability Document, Capability

Development Document, Capability Production Document, and System Survivability KPPs.

A4.3.2. Application of the NSS determination involves multiple stakeholders, beginning with

the Program Management Office (PMO) and including DAF TSN, the SAE, and the DAF CIO.

In cases of dispute, status change, or sunset, the dispute may involve stakeholders from DoD

CIO or the Federal level up to the NSS National Manager. NSS determination will be added

as a new program protection item for inclusion in DAFPAM 63-128. In the interim, a

documented, systematic, comprehensive NSS determination workflow is available upon

request from the TSN Center of Excellence (CoE).

A4.3.3. Application of the NSS determination process generates the NSS Identification

Checklist at Figure 4.1. Checklist for National Security Systems Determination. Required

participants in the determination process include signatories on the NSS designation

memorandum, the Information Owner, the lead systems engineer, and the verifier

(Implementing Command TSN Focal Point, or designee). Additional participants may include

the Information System Owner, the Information System Security Manager (ISSM), or others

as identified. Required participants at system sunset (which does not involve a determination

decision) are the PM and the Information Owner. The PM is the required primary signatory

on the designation memorandum that will be submitted with the NSS determination. During

initial determination and cases without dispute, a Command TSN Focal Point or designee is

the verifier and second signatory. The second signatory is delegated by the SAE and represents

TSN equities. Note: Information submitted in the Checklist for National Security

Determination should be protected at the level of the submitted information, to include as

controlled unclassified information. Reference DoDI 5200.08.

DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024 195

A4.3.4. Drivers for a NSS determination requirement may include making the initial system

determination, a mission change for the system, and removal or inclusion of classified data

handling. Initial determinations and annual reviews resulting in a status change are submitted

to SAF/AQ, and SAF/SQ for space systems, for tracking in PMRT.

A4.4. Checklist for NSS Determination. Program managers should complete and submit a NSS

determination checklist outlined in Figure A4.1. This NSS determination checklist will be

completed and submitted to SAF/AQ and SAF/SQ for space systems, for tracking. SAF/AQ, or

SAF/SQ for space systems, will then record the determination checklist recommendation for

tracking in PMRT. The PM will then provide the NSS determination checklist to SAF/CN who

will review and validate NSS determination is documented in the system of record.

196 DAFI63-101/20-101 16 FEBRUARY 2024

Figure A4.1. Checklist for National Security System Determination.